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

[SleeperAgent]

Originally Posted by radagast

If the news on this site is correct, the EEs are coming out later this year, which does not bode well. It sounds like Warner isn't putting out any extra effort to make them look better than the TEs.

Well then they still won't be getting my money.

I don't care what edition it is, if it isn't magnificent I won't be buying it. Screw WB's greed. Make some real frakkin transfers.

[aiman04]

Now this is how you do it:

http://img.filmsactu.com/datas/dvd/m...f6bb230589.jpg

http://img.filmsactu.com/datas/dvd/m...f6bb5ab74a.jpg

[mredman]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Now this is how you do it:

http://img.filmsactu.com/datas/dvd/m...f6bb230589.jpg

http://img.filmsactu.com/datas/dvd/m...f6bb5ab74a.jpg

Wow Minority Report looks teriffic

But you can't compare a totally different movie with another

[mredman]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Yeah, I have the UK box set and it looks fine. I've checked it on two tv's, my 48inch LG Plasma, and a 22inch Samsung LCD, and there were no problems. Fellowship looked a little underwhelming, but thats about the worst I can say. In all honesty I don't see anyone in the "real" world actually even noticing any supposed "issues". The two big film magazines in the UK reviewed the set this month, with not a mention towards any problems with the transfers. It really is just a situation for the obsessives to torture themselves over.

Yeah the crazy videophiles will never be satisfied. It seems to me this set is good and now even a video magazine praises these.

Also 2 have seen it here and have them and is saying now it is not as bad as the negative reviewers say

[SleeperAgent]

Originally Posted by mredman

Yeah the crazy videophiles will never be satisfied. It seems to me this set is good and now even a video magazine praises these.

Also 2 have seen it her a have them and is saying now it is not as bad as the negative reviewers say

I have yet to see a mainstream magazine ever give a bad review......

Just saying.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by _ck

I don't buy that one bit. Especially when Ken said (paraphrasing) that WB doesn't like "unauthorized" screencaps (period), yet the new Sherlock Holmes review just posted has screencaps, and they didn't make them take down screencaps for ALL WB titles. What would make LOTR so extremely special compared to EVERYTHING else they've released? No, I don't buy your explanation one bit. They've never done it before, and now it just "randomly" happens with a major release that gets panned. Their reasons aren't legal, they are damage control and guilt.

WB can't force a site take out their text/review. Blu-ray.com has authorship and copyright of what they write, as anyone does with anything they create. WB do own the films, and the screencaps fall under their ownership, but to take away a review they need to go to court (or put a lot of pressure on a site to coerce them to remove it). WB aren't so dumb that they'd try to force Blu-ray.com take down the review though, they know that'd just make it even worse.

Agreed. It is obvious damage control.

[mredman]

French site giving all 3 movies good PQ 16/20 in PQ

http://www.filmsactu.com/test-blu-ra...nneau-9448.htm

That is 4 reviewers now i have seen giving it very good reviews and 2 here on the forum also says it looks good

Gladiator the site gives 11/20
http://www.filmsactu.com/test-blu-ra...u-ray-7506.htm

So it really seems it is not so bad as some say

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by _ck

I don't buy that one bit. Especially when Ken said (paraphrasing) that WB doesn't like "unauthorized" screencaps (period), yet the new Sherlock Holmes review just posted has screencaps, and they didn't make them take down screencaps for ALL WB titles. What would make LOTR so extremely special compared to EVERYTHING else they've released? No, I don't buy your explanation one bit. They've never done it before, and now it just "randomly" happens with a major release that gets panned. Their reasons aren't legal, they are damage control and guilt.

WB can't force a site take out their text/review. Blu-ray.com has authorship and copyright of what they write, as anyone does with anything they create. WB do own the films, and the screencaps fall under their ownership, but to take away a review they need to go to court (or put a lot of pressure on a site to coerce them to remove it). WB aren't so dumb that they'd try to force Blu-ray.com take down the review though, they know that'd just make it even worse.

To be fair, they asked Blu-ray.com to take down the screencaps from the Batman Anthology. Unlike LOTR, the Batman Anthology actually had pretty good PQ relatively speaking. Batman Returns looked great even by today's standards for new releases. There was no DNR applied to the transfers, unlike LOTR. There's no excuse for post-2000 films with such strong production values as LOTR to have crappy transfers.


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Batma...y-Review/3660/

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by mredman

French site giving all 3 movies good PQ 16/20 in PQ

http://www.filmsactu.com/test-blu-ra...nneau-9448.htm

That is 4 reviewers now i have seen giving it very good reviews and 2 here on the forum also says it looks good

Gladiator the site gives 11/20
http://www.filmsactu.com/test-blu-ra...u-ray-7506.htm

So it really seems it is not so bad as some say

When multiple VERY credible reviewers give a film LOW PQ scores, I would say it is definitely as bad as some say. Just my opinion though.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by mredman

French site giving all 3 movies good PQ 16/20 in PQ

http://www.filmsactu.com/test-blu-ra...nneau-9448.htm

That is 4 reviewers now i have seen giving it very good reviews and 2 here on the forum also says it looks good

Gladiator the site gives 11/20
http://www.filmsactu.com/test-blu-ra...u-ray-7506.htm

So it really seems it is not so bad as some say

A 16/20 = 80% = B- score isn't much to get excited over, and just isn't good enough for Lord Of The Rings.

[kurtlingle]

So when are we going to see some deals on this thing for release day buyers?

I need to have this in hand on April 6th since I'm having a LOTR blu-ray party. And guess which movie we are watching - yep FOTR!

I sure hope I can pick this up for $50/$55 or $60 on the 6th. I'm dying to see the Walmart/Target/BB deals... as I don't want to buy online since I must have it (or my friends will kill me).

I'll post a review once I watch them on the 6th.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Story from the news page:

Rumor: LOTR Extended Edition Blu-ray Late This Year

Posted March 29, 2010 06:26 AM by Juan Calonge

Blu-ray MoviesMetropolitan Film & Vidéo, the French distributor for The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy, has revealed to specialized site blurayenfrancais.com that the extended versions will arrive late this year, much earlier than expected. Reportedly, the studio first wanted to see how the theatrical versions were received among the press and the enthusiasts.

However, according to other recent unofficial information (see blu-ray.com, December 1, 2009), the extended editions would be released to tie in with the theatrical release of The Hobbit - that is to say, no earlier than 2011.

I think they got their answer loud and clear!

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

To be fair, they asked Blu-ray.com to take down the screencaps from the Batman Anthology. Unlike LOTR, the Batman Anthology actually had pretty good PQ relatively speaking. Batman Returns looked great even by today's standards for new releases. There was no DNR applied to the transfers, unlike LOTR. There's no excuse for post-2000 films with such strong production values as LOTR to have crappy transfers.


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Batma...y-Review/3660/

There's still no conclusive proof as to whether it's the transfer, or simply flaws in the movie itself.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

I think they got their answer loud and clear!

Not really, considering they haven't been released yet.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

There's still no conclusive proof as to whether it's the transfer, or simply flaws in the movie itself.

You mean the master. The master can be manipulated and is the reason for a good or bad transfer. When you apply DNR, EE, etc. to the master, the transfer is going to look like crap no matter how high the bitrate is. Gangs of New York and Gladiator are perfect examples of this. WB should have done proper high resolution scans for LOTR with no DNR and such applied to the master.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

When multiple VERY credible reviewers give a film LOW PQ scores, I would say it is definitely as bad as some say. Just my opinion though.

But am I right in thinking you STILL haven't actually seen it? Those of us that have seen it don't think its as bad as the likes of yourself are making out. There are just as many credible reviewers out there giving it good scores as there are bad.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

When multiple VERY credible reviewers give a film LOW PQ scores, I would say it is definitely as bad as some say. Just my opinion though.

so you are calling Bill Hunt an unreliable reviewer?
he gave it a good score like others have done

[mredman]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

A 16/20 = 80% = B- score isn't much to get excited over, and just isn't good enough for Lord Of The Rings.

Well they gave Gladiator 11/20 55% that is way worse the LOTR FOTR. Face it many say its good also

[gaeljet]

dont know if it was published, here s a link
http://www.blurayenfrancais.com/blu-...ficialise.html
EE officially anounced

[radagast]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Story from the news page:



I think they got their answer loud and clear!

This means that the people they listened to, are the people bit**ing about the TEs on Amazon. All of those people may have done the rest of us a disservice by making Warner want to release the EEs sooner, rather than take the time to make the PQ and AQ with a rating of 5/5 for both.