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

[Diesel]

I have never read the books, and probably won't. Not because I'm part of the "MTV world" or have a short attention span, but simply because they never piqued my interest to read them. I only ever watched the movies by chance. I stumbled upon them one day on TNT several years back and loved them. But they didn't make me feel like reading the books.

I did read The Hobbit though when I was in school.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I have never read the books, and probably won't. I did read The Hobbit though when I was in school.

Big difference between The Hobbit and LOTR. It might be worthwhile to give LOTR a chance; it was voted "book of the century" in several polls in 1999, as well as "book of the millenium" in one.

[drichter33]

I hate the part with the Corsair Ship and shooting the arrow that kills PJ. Completely ruins the surprise at the end when the army of the dead jumps off the ship.

And the scene with Gandalf and the Witch King is so unnecessary and just thrown in that even the edit of the music is wrong. He breaks the staff, then instead of killing his nemesis, he fly's away at the sound of Theodins army? Whole thing is just stupid.

And dont get me started on the 27 endings. It should have wrapped up with a very sentimental pan out at the ceremony on the top of minas tirith.

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by drichter33

And dont get me started on the 27 endings. It should have wrapped up with a very sentimental pan out at the ceremony on the top of minas tirith.

And then you'd have even more people complaining about Jackson and his "messing" with the books.

Tolkien covered quite a bit more ground after the ceremony in the books.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by drichter33

And dont get me started on the 27 endings. It should have wrapped up with a very sentimental pan out at the ceremony on the top of minas tirith.

The number of endings are all necessary to wrap up the previous 9 (TE) or 11 (EE) hours of material with the numerous plot threads for all of the characters. That is one place where Jackson remained relatively faithful to the book - and he did the right thing, probably to the detriment of those unfamiliar with the book.

[DMC86X]

Will these be in 3 seperate BD cases like the Bourne trilogy or is it one big set??

[P@t_Mtl]

I always loved the books, been reading them for 30 years once a year (a tradition of mine) and I was ok with the changes. I see the books and movies as two different things. I don't quite think it's that easy to re-create a book look for look into a movie, certain things need to be change as while you have the auther explanation in the books the movies have to use a different way of doing things.

Beside, look at Watchmen, they did a fairly good look for look adaptation of the comics into the movie and some people still complaint that now it was too much like the comics In other words they will never please everyone when adapting a book into a movie. IMO Jackson and his team and cast did a heck of job on those movies.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by DMC86X

Will these be in 3 seperate BD cases like the Bourne trilogy or is it one big set??

Probably will be 3 3-disc cases.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I always loved the books, been reading them for 30 years once a year (a tradition of mine)

Me too. I start with The Silmarillion at the beginning of the year, start The Hobbit at the end of April, begin LOTR at the end of May and usually finish around the second week of August. It is mandatory (for me) to use the Karen Wynn Fonstad "Atlas of Middle Earth" to follow along. I still haven't got tired of it yet and look forward to starting it all again next year. My kids correctly assume I am nuts.

[maverik1979]

Originally Posted by saprano

16 bit dolby truhd 5.1 audio, warner really sucks ass. i though new line took over their transfers again?

Dont expect perfect PQ ether, warner is incapable of making reference PQ.

Dont think i'll be buying this again.

(I really hate that damn studio)

where is the confirmation of it being 16-bit audio? (other than WB track record of-course)

and as for another post saying why no 7.1 as theatrically it only had 5.1, guess what they managed to pull out a 6.1 for the EE dvd

personally im not too fussed by trueHD over DTS as long as its 24bit

[kernel_thai]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

This is why buying this set is a problem. For me, The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition is a masterpiece. Pure perfection. So, no matter what I have to have some form of that film on home video, whether it's keeping my extended edition on DVD now or replace it with the eventual blu-ray.

The extended editions for the next two is just a tricky situation. I have serious problems with the crap that was added, and yet there are a number of scenes between the two films (The Heir of Numenor in the Two Towers, the Witch King and Gandalf scene in Return of the King are examples) that are sublime. Plus, I pretty much despise how they ended the Two Towers in the extended edition and I think the demise of Saruman at the beginning of Return of the King is bad in its placement and bad in its execution.

Do the really bad scenes out way the really good scenes in extended editions of the last two films? I just don't know. I just wish Jackson would do a middle cut between the two versions.

You don't need the Boromir flashback. You don't need the Corsair ships sequence that features Peter Jackson's cameo. You don't need the drinking game between Legolas and Gimli in Return of the King.

Yet, you really need that scene where Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron with the palantir.

Decisions. Decisions. Decisons.

It doesn't matter which version of Fellowship I watch. It's just that good.

Its easy to find fault with the restored material. Personally, I wouldnt have restored any scene with a stand alone nature like the drinking contest. On the other hand, the scenes with Faramir and Eowyn in the house of healing r the only explanation why the two of theme r together at the coronation.

Im kind of offended by the price. Normally $99/$69 would a fair place to start but considering they r placeholders til the EEs come out I would have preferred a cheaper, stripped down version. Even for those who prefer the TEs, they dont really need to pay extra for dvd versions of extra features. I would think $49.95 street as a better place to start.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

Its easy to find fault with the restored material. Personally, I wouldnt have restored any scene with a stand alone nature like the drinking contest. On the other hand, the scenes with Faramir and Eowyn in the house of healing r the only explanation why the two of theme r together at the coronation.

Im kind of offended by the price. Normally $99/$69 would a fair place to start but considering they r placeholders til the EEs come out I would have preferred a cheaper, stripped down version. Even for those who prefer the TEs, they dont really need to pay extra for dvd versions of extra features. I would think $49.95 street as a better place to start.

I do agree but not for the same reasons. Blu-ray is no longer a niche media, it is mainstream and a price above $50 for the set will probably scare away a lot of sales the first week and like most studio execs will say, the first week is what really matters. The longer you wait to buy a movie, the less likely you are to do it, I guess.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Me too. I start with The Silmarillion at the beginning of the year, start The Hobbit at the end of April, begin LOTR at the end of May and usually finish around the second week of August. It is mandatory (for me) to use the Karen Wynn Fonstad "Atlas of Middle Earth" to follow along. I still haven't got tired of it yet and look forward to starting it all again next year. My kids correctly assume I am nuts.

I try to read The Hobbit and LotR at least every 12-18 months. You seriously read The Silmarillion annually? That has got to be the most painfull book I have ever read! Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed all of the back-stories, but trying to keep all of the characters and interactions straight made my brain hurt. I may have to look into the Atlas of Middle Earth to help better understand things.

[maverik1979]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

Im kind of offended by the price. Normally $99/$69 would a fair place to start but considering they r placeholders til the EEs come out I would have preferred a cheaper, stripped down version. Even for those who prefer the TEs, they dont really need to pay extra for dvd versions of extra features. I would think $49.95 street as a better place to start.

this was the same point i was making before, i already own the EE dvd's and as far as i can make out all the extras are the same on the bluray release, so why should i have to buy them again?

[mredman]

Anyone else VERY disappointed that the brilliant theatrical trailers for these movies is not included in this set. They are not even on this set only the supertrailer. WTH man!
They should have been on in glorious HD

Bad move warner!

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by mredman

Anyone else VERY disappointed that the brilliant theatrical trailers for these movies is not included in this set. They are not even on this set only the supertrailer. WTH man!
They should have been on in glorious HD

Bad move warner!

I'm disappointed that the extras are on DVDs. Then again, if they were to try and restore those we might be waiting another year or more.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by mredman

Anyone else VERY disappointed that the brilliant theatrical trailers for these movies is not included in this set.

Im disappointed....but i wouldnt say VERY disappointed.
I mean its just more walking around right ?

ok im tiring of tiger woods jokes so.

[gcchifi]

Too lazy to read all 140+ pages... I am taking a pass on the Theatrical Versions. I'll spend $$ on other titles instead. The Extended Versions will appear soon enough...

[saprano]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

What's bad about TrueHD? And your comment about about the PQ their releases have is just plain stupid. Have you seen The Wizard of Oz?

Nothing is bad about THD.....when used right.

Yes i've seen the wizard of oz and its absolutely gorgeous, but thats not a good a example. the movie was remasterd with an 8k resolution. warner would have to be really dumb to mess that one up.

Its their new releases that are average. the dark night for example, the 35mm shots can look way better than what WB did. i dont understand how they can treat a movie that made them a billion dollars like that. and theres to many other movies to name.

Lately they have been getting better but they're still not on the level of studios like universal and disney.

Originally Posted by 42041

If the movie was mixed in 5.1, why would the blu-ray be 7.1?

Well the company that did the EE's on DVD did them in DTS 6.1, i guess its going to be the same with the bluray EE's.

Originally Posted by maverik1979

where is the confirmation of it being 16-bit audio? (other than WB track record of-course)

and as for another post saying why no 7.1 as theatrically it only had 5.1, guess what they managed to pull out a 6.1 for the EE dvd

personally im not too fussed by trueHD over DTS as long as its 24bit

Warner never uses 24bit DTHD.

[maverik1979]

Originally Posted by saprano

Warner never uses 24bit DTHD.

well lets hope this is another turning point for them (like they never used to do lossless at all) to jump to 24-bit