The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[Ooze33]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Question: Is each film split in two or is it all on one disc?

Each film is split over 2 Blu-ray discs.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Question: Is each film split in two or is it all on one disc?

Why? Would that be a problem if each are split on 2 discs?

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by Ooze33

Each film is split over 2 Blu-ray discs.

Darn, that's a bummer. Was hoping to view it as a whole in one sitting without breaking to insert another disc

[David A.]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Darn, that's a bummer. Was hoping to view it as a whole in one sitting without breaking to insert another disc

The last movie is almost four hours long. Your extremities are liable to start atrophying if you stay seated for the entire duration.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by David A.

The last movie is almost four hours long. Your extremities are liable to start atrophying if you stay seated for the entire duration.

Hopefully not all his extremities (but, just the same, don't sit on a bike seat the entire time).

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Darn, that's a bummer. Was hoping to view it as a whole in one sitting without breaking to insert another disc

Really?!?!? Seriously??? It takes less than a minute to get the film started again.

1st world problems. Sheesh!

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Really?!?!? Seriously??? It takes less than a minute to get the film started again.

3rd world problems. Sheesh!

Isn't that "First world problems. Sheesh!"?

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Why? Would that be a problem if each are split on 2 discs?

A poster was just asking a question, is that a problem, or is it too much to ask for? How else is a person suppose to know, and learn anything, if they don't ask questions.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Darn, that's a bummer. Was hoping to view it as a whole in one sitting without breaking to insert another disc

The Limited Edition dvds that came out after the Extended version boxes had the full extended movies on one disc, at least according to the specs. I had the old dvd sets so I never tried the re-issues. I'd like em to be on one disc myself, but it's not a huge deal or dealbreaker.

[Jbug]

Since it looks like these won't be converted to 3D, I'll be buying the box set for $29.99.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Jbug

Since it looks like these won't be converted to 3D, I'll be buying the box set for $29.99.

Purist wouldn't want a 3D conversion anyway! 3D conversions are a gimmick because, it's not what the filmmaker intended. If The Lord of the Rings saga was originally filmed in 2D, then that's way the movies should be presented. Every movie shouldn't, and not supposed to be converted in 3D, to appease the 3D HDTV owners. Besides, $29.99 is a GREAT price.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Man I already have it and I want to order another at this price lol.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Purist wouldn't want a 3D conversion anyway! 3D conversions, is a gimmick because, it's not what the filmmaker intended. If The Lord of the Rings was originally filmed in 2D, that's way the movies should be presented. Every movie shouldn't, and not supposed to be converted in 3D, to appease the 3D HDTV owners. Besides, $29.99 is a GREAT price.

Uh ... a little consistency? You bugged Petra for not liking a poster's choice, now you ridicule another poster for their choice. Personally, I don't do 3D, but if someone enjoys a flick that way, as long as the "original" is available, no skin ofrf my ass.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by David A.

The last movie is almost four hours long. Your extremities are liable to start atrophying if you stay seated for the entire duration.

To me, that is the only exception of a movie split across two discs. And trust me, my couch is extra comfy; I don't have to worry about those extremities haha.

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Really?!?!? Seriously??? It takes less than a minute to get the film started again.

In my opinion it makes for a smoother marathon to seamlessly watch a movie in one sitting as intended to be.

Originally Posted by slimdude

A poster was just asking a question, is that a problem, or is it too much to ask for? How else is a person suppose to know, and learn anything, if they don't ask questions.

Thank you for understanding where I was coming from.

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

The Limited Edition dvds that came out after the Extended version boxes had the full extended movies on one disc, at least according to the specs. I had the old dvd sets so I never tried the re-issues. I'd like em to be on one disc myself, but it's not a huge deal or dealbreaker.

You are correct, they were stored on one disc. Part 1 was on Side-A and Part 2 was on Side-B. I dislike two sided discs due to higher risk of scratching them.

[Geoff D]

Boy, some of you folks would've been barrels of fun back in the days when movies had intermissions at the theater.

[Early Memphis]

Not a technician, but the theory is that putting a long movie on two discs allows for less compression/more "room to breathe" - resulting for a smoother, "better" image, which is why we buy BDs, right? At least that's what I always read from the video-philes.

P.S. Why is "audiophiles" a word, but not "videophiles" - at least according to spell check.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Isn't that "First world problems. Sheesh!"?

Yes. Indeed. Thank you. I've been awake for far too long. I'm actually starting to nod off into short 1 minute naps with my laptop on my lap.

Originally Posted by jayman3

In my opinion it makes for a smoother marathon to seamlessly watch a movie in one sitting as intended to be.

At the expense of quality though? I'd rather have the best quality and get a small break to stretch my legs or get a drink. After all, after that length of time staring at a screen, it's good to "refresh."

And, I do an Extended Edition marathon every summer. I watch all 3 in one sitting, back to back to back. And, honestly, it makes no difference in how smoothly the experience transpires.

What do you do when you have to go to the bathroom while watching a film? That takes longer than changing the discs does. So, I don't see how it's much of a problem myself.

Originally Posted by slimdude

Purist wouldn't want a 3D conversion anyway! 3D conversions, is a gimmick because, it's not what the filmmaker intended. If The Lord of the Rings was originally filmed in 2D, that's way the movies should be presented. Every movie shouldn't, and not supposed to be converted in 3D, to appease the 3D HDTV owners. Besides, $29.99 is a GREAT price.

Hypocritical much?

[Biggiesized]

Does FOTR still have the green tint issue?

The EE set is on sale for $30 today.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by jayman3

You are correct, they were stored on one disc. Part 1 was on Side-A and Part 2 was on Side-B. I dislike two sided discs due to higher risk of scratching them.

2 sides? That might as well be 2 discs! So glad I never bit on these, and I was tempted many times before getting my first BD player. The only temptation was not having to switch discs, and you still have to!

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Biggiesized

Does FOTR still have the green tint issue?

The EE set is on sale for $30 today.

Depends on who you ask. To me, the image is a smidge of a tad of a freckle darker than the theatricals. However, it's only really truly noticeable to me in 2 or 3 short scenes. However, I do not see any green tint.

Others swear that the film looks like it was retinted by the Wachowski Bros. from their Matrix days.

EDIT: I reread your post. The transfer has not changed from its initial release.