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

[dcowboy7]

if hes that concerned tell him to put it in his contract the movies can only be shown in OAR....but he wont do that because it would cost him $$$.

the "integrity" of his art is at stake.

[drizzt]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

The confusion is that it sounded like you were implying that the *discs* should be 1.78:1... which would have meant cropping. That's why folks got so "protective" as every 5 minutes some blu-ray newbie doesn't understand why there "are black bars" on his HDTV and thinks he should zoom his 2.35:1 image cropping off the sides to see his/her screen filled. So that's the daily context through which folks read your statements.

Now, indeed you did actually say that the film-makers themselves should choose the 1.78:1 aspect ratio from the start in the theater.

Ok, nothing wrong with that... as you're not talking about chopping movies in half.

However, I'd suggest that 16x9 is a compromise for most film-makers. Next time you go to the theater and the movie switches from the opening trailer to the real 2.35:1 film watch what happens.

Does the 2.35:1 movie show up letterboxed inside the 1.85:1 window where the trailers were being shown?

Nope. The curtains pull back on the left/right so that the 2.35:1 movie is panoramic and fills the entire stage in a way that 1.85:1 movies don't do. In other words, 2.35:1 movies are supposed to be WIDER, not "narrower" like they are on your 16x9 screen.

The drama and impact of a 2.35:1 movie on the big screen cannot be beat... 1.85:1 movies feel "budget" by comparison (in general).

The future may not be as 16x9-locked as you think, even in the home. Now that we're free from CRT tubes, displays can be made in any shape without difficulty. With no vacuum tube to create physical problems, a native 2.35:1 HDTV would be no big deal to manufacture. Expect to see some "high end" 2.35:1 sets showing up over the next few years. And naturally, in the front-projection world, you can really do constant-height and have 2.35:1 movies "get wider" just like they do in the theater.



Agreed. The dramatic cinematography of real widescreen would feel pretty cramped if all you had to work with was 16x9.

This is where I was saying I don't understand the anger. Just because someone is a "New Member" does not mean they're clueless. I am not saying that's what you were implying just folks in general.
If the answer is to change the television set sizes and not to change the director's cameras. point is until that happens the solution seems to be change cameras. If they are to do nothing it's like trying to push an orange through a square hole for the next few years and call it superior technology. If they were to bring out televisions in 2.35:1 I would be happy as would everyone who likes this aspect. Thanks for the tip. I'll be watching to see if this becomes reality if so I'll be selling my 46"

[dcowboy7]

but on a 2:35.1 tv a movie would be ok but then 16x9 tv shows would have black bars on the sides....your burned again.

[Kryptron]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

if hes that concerned tell him to put it in his contract the movies can only be shown in OAR....but he wont do that because it would cost him $$$.

the "integrity" of his art is at stake.

I doubt he gives a crap of how the movie is shown on tv. He doesn't make money when the movies are shown on TNT or any other channel as far as i know. For years movies have been shown in 4:3 cutting way more of the picture then it is now. Everyone who wants to see the movie the way the director intended it to be will buy it or rent it on Blu-ray or dvd in OAR.

[drizzt]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

but on a 2:35.1 tv a movie would be ok but then 16x9 tv shows would have black bars on the sides....your burned again.

I guess a camera change would be in order for tv programming. Silly right. Bottom line is they did'nt think it throgh. I'd still change my tv or have both. LOL!

[Bill Hunt]

There's never going to be a perfect solution for this problem, because movies have been shot in a variety of different aspect ratios since film was first invented. You're always going to have black bars, unless and until someone invents a shape-shifting HDTV display...

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

if hes that concerned tell him to put it in his contract the movies can only be shown in OAR....but he wont do that because it would cost him $$$.

the "integrity" of his art is at stake.

How would that cost him money? Did P.J. murder your family or something?

[dcowboy7]

but your not answering the question....really why doesnt he do that ?

why is that such a wacky question ?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

but your not answering the question....really why doesnt he do that ?

why is that such a wacky question ?

that could never be put into his contract

the AR of the networks are up to the network not the director or the studio (i believe)

[ajmrowland]

Originally Posted by drizzt

But screen size should'nt affect their vision only ours because my 46" may as well be a 40 or 42 inch you know.

There's hardly any loss of quality on my 47". Cars, at least still looks like perfection, but that's another story. Besides, if you're tv was 42" inch, even if the image was the same, you'd lose too much width.

[cartman781]

post 1500

I will get them when they go on a good sale, maybe $50

[Constitution 101]

This is not the studio's first rodeo. They're a fortune 500 publicly traded corporation. They've been through this before. They'll release the TE & EE in whatever way is required for the most optimal return on their shareholder's investments. There's no other factor involved here but that. It's a free-market system, no one MAKES you buy anything. The best way to voice your opinion is vote with your wallet!

[mthopper]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

This is not the studio's first rodeo. They're a fortune 500 publicly traded corporation. They've been through this before. They'll release the TE & EE in whatever way is required for the most optimal return on their shareholder's investments. There's no other factor involved here but that. It's a free-market system, no one MAKES you buy anything. The best way to voice your opinion is vote with your wallet!

Thank you! Well said!

[wormraper]

LOL, I can't believe it. We're actually bringing the OAR whining into the LOTR thread now!??? is there not something else about LOTR we can complain about???

[alphadec]

am I the only one who is NOT buying LOTR (BD)... ?

[BluBrown]

Originally Posted by wormraper

LOL, I can't believe it. We're actually bringing the OAR whining into the LOTR thread now!??? is there not something else about LOTR we can complain about???

THANK YOU! I was beginning to think I was reading a thread about aspect ratios and not LOTR.

[GoodToGo]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

It's not like the TE's are exactly cheap. $100 MSRP for a bare-bones trilogy is still pretty high. I don't care how long the movies are.

Second, if Warner really cared about us EE fans, when the EE's are released, they'd let us send in our TE Blu-Rays (along with the original receipt) for a FULL CREDIT (or close to a full credit) towards the EE's. Like a rebate. Or something like a $50 mail-in rebate for buying both the TE's AND the EE's. Now THAT would make EE fans happy. I don't see that happening. It wouldn't be good for Warner's pocketbook (which is the ONLY thing that matters here. NOT the consumer.)

I don't know where you got the figure of $100 from but my preorder came out to be $75 and it would be cheaper except for the darn tax New York charges on internet sales

I like the rebate idea but you know well there is no chance of that happening

[GoodToGo]

Originally Posted by alphadec

am I the only one who is NOT buying LOTR (BD)... ?

Yes

On a side note, why not?

[monkyman]

Those of you that are NOT going to buy the theatrical editions, are you going to go see "The Hobbit" when it comes out? Or are you going to wait until it comes out on BD in EE? I mean after all, it will the the theatrical version at the theater.
I bet a lot of you that whine about the extended version are also the ones that whine about not getting Star Wars in it's Original theatrical version with Han's shooting First!!
Let's face it, it's not YOUR decision on how it's released, it's your decision to buy it or not, that's all. Stop complaining. So many of you take everything for granted that things have to be done to satisfy YOU. Be happy you are getting something.

[BoomBoxV102]

Originally Posted by monkyman

Those of you that are NOT going to buy the theatrical editions, are you going to go see "The Hobbit" when it comes out? Or are you going to wait until it comes out on BD in EE? I mean after all, it will the the theatrical version at the theater.
I bet a lot of you that whine about the extended version are also the ones that whine about not getting Star Wars in it's Original theatrical version with Han's shooting First!!
Let's face it, it's not YOUR decision on how it's released, it's your decision to buy it or not, that's all. Stop complaining. So many of you take everything for granted that things have to be done to satisfy YOU. Be happy you are getting something.

+1