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

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Hopefully...

I just can't take the wait anymore... I can't rest... I can't sleep...

Just 2 weeks from today, and all will be well......

[hamchuck1]

the only way to stop companies from selling "good enough" blu rays, only to come out with a better version later, is to not buy the the 1st edition.

Blu ray has been long enough that professional reviewers are getting very good disecting the AQ and PQ. We pretty much know now if its the way the movie was filmed or a shoddy transfer.

The only thing that matters is the bottom line($$$$). They know exactly what they are doing when they release an inferior product. It's big business at its best.

If enough people "protest" by not buying these editions, and it makes a significant dent in their profits, thats the best thing that can happen.

Remember: Change happens from necessity. It's going to be interesting to find out if this release does not sell well and changes the way companies release future big catalog movies.

here's hoping anyways

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Exactly what is the point? Those that want to buy it will buy it because

1. they are fine with the release
2. they enjoy the movies and they want them
3. they don't care about details on PQ & AQ

Those that do not like it won't buy it because

1. the hate the transfert
2. they were expecting better
3. they don't care the others are saying it's good enough

At the end of the day, what was actualy done? A few people mad, a few insults posted, a few people added to ignore list or ban or suspended. All in the name of what exactly? Have yet to ever see any of these forum argument achieve anything.

But this is the very heart of the issue. Blu-ray/1080p demands nothing but the best transfers. If one of the best modern day movies, let alone the trilogy, is given a sub-par treatment for a format that will very easily exploit the issues, you bet that's Warner's fault and they deserve every insult, complaint, etc. This is one of those "Holy Grail" releases for the Blu-ray format, like Star Wars will be. How much do you want to bet an older film like Star Wars will look 100 times better than what we see Warner did with LOTR. I bet my upconverted Star Wars DVD's look better than this and for a trilogy of this stature, that is a travesty. This release and the transfers should have been nothing short of a bonafied "slam dunk". The screenshots clearly show otherwise.

[robertc88]

Originally Posted by p@t_mtl

exactly what is the point? Those that want to buy it will buy it because

1. They are fine with the release
2. They enjoy the movies and they want them
3. They don't care about details on pq & aq

those that do not like it won't buy it because

1. The hate the transfert
2. They were expecting better
3. They don't care the others are saying it's good enough

at the end of the day, what was actualy done? A few people mad, a few insults posted, a few people added to ignore list or ban or suspended. All in the name of what exactly? Have yet to ever see any of these forum argument achieve anything.

+1000. I'm not sure about #3 though not caring about details on PQ and AQ. But you should add a #4 which states because they were influenced by a cheap price (like Gladiator).

And all that with reading the back and forth about the quality on that one and the voting which showed the higher percentage buying it regardless anyway.

[Dase]

My .02 FWIW (not much lol )

My thought is that although still great films on their own, the theatrical verisons are not the definitive versions of the films. So sure they are cashing in on these first, and regardless what anyone says, given the popularity of these films they are going to make some serious $$$. If you want these in your collection pick them up, but you know that the extended editions are going to be better, and have the full gamut of features, special features, etc. Even so, many people will be more than happy with these and enjoy them to the fullest.

I for one (because I am not buying the theatrical versions, I didn't on DVD either) get even more excited when people start b*t**ing about the initial releases not being up to snuff, because most of the time it will make the following release even better. IMO the EE's will be more than worth the wait, especially if there is already controversy with these. I didn't even see ROTK in the theater because I knew that I would enjoy the EE more, sure the wait was long, but it was worth it. If you want the definitive versions, then wait for the definitive EE set .

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Maggot

But this is the very heart of the issue. Blu-ray/1080p demands nothing but the best transfers. If one of the best modern day movies, let alone the trilogy, is given a sub-par treatment for a format that will very easily exploit the issues, you bet that's Warner's fault and they deserve every insult, complaint, etc. This is one of those "Holy Grail" releases for the Blu-ray format, like Star Wars will be. How much do you want to bet an older film like Star Wars will look 100 times better than what we see Warner did with LOTR. I bet my upconverted Star Wars DVD's look better than this and for a trilogy of this stature, that is a travesty. This release and the transfers should have been nothing short of a bonafied "slam dunk". The screenshots clearly show otherwise.

Okay, there are still complaints about a disc the majority (myself included) haven't seen?
You can't compare Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings, because they're both different movies, shot differently.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Discuss whatever you want pertaining to the release of these on Blu-ray...... but let's please keep it CIVIL....... Also, although much can be extrapolated from the screen-caps...... it might be good to wait to see some reviews and actually view it yourself (and I'm not blindly supporting, I'm just giving the benefit of doubt..... I don't even like these movies)

BUT AGAIN..... keep it civil.....

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.

[Andes]

I still plan to buy both the theatrical and EE. As for the definitive release I agree with Mr. Jackson.

http://tbhl.theonering.net/peter/int...interview.html

Q: What happens on the extended version of this one?

JACKSON: The extended versions are interesting because I do the extended versions for the fans, really. To me every time I put a scene in it, it's mucking up the momentum. The theatrical versions are very carefully worked out. We spent a whole year trying to get the best possible cut. I do the extended cuts because we have 30-40 minutes of footage that people are interested in, fans of the books. It's usually related to something that's in the book. It's a legitimate part of the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and you can either have it lost forever or you can put an extended cut out. So I do these extended cuts thinking that people will like to see these scenes. But I'm aware every time I put something in [that] the momentum of the scene going to be slow. This is going to slow the first act down. Every time I think I'm spoiling the film, but I'm doing it because people want to see it and they'll see it in their home. The DVD has a different dynamic. You can watch it over two nights or you can pause it and make a cup of tea. The whole pacing on the DVD seems to have a different requirement or level of commitment from the audience. Then I read these reviews that say this is so much better than the theatrical version. And I think, 'Oh God!' The big question is, if you took this 3 hour and 40 minute version of the Two Towers and released it in the cinemas, what would people have thought of it? Everyone would have criticized it for being too long. Yet on video, they think it's better. I'm finding it fascinating because it's new. It's a whole different development in filmmaking that's because of the new technology and the way DVDs are establishing themselves. Packages for fans, the documentary materials, it's interesting. I don't know quite what the rules are.

Q: How do you address how long to make the extended versions?

JACKSON: I read criticism about us with the discs, but I don't know quite what the answer is. I don't know what it is that people want in actual fact so I don't know what the criticism is. If people are saying, 'Why can't we have a set that has the theatrical version and the extended version?' I'm not sure it's what they want, because if you do that it's going to cost more money. If we release a four-disc set, if you want the theatrical version and the other stuff, it's going to be a six-disc set and you're going to be charged for a six-disc set. What we're trying to do, we've tried deliberately to be good people. We put out the theatrical version for people who just want the movie in their collection. That's done with a disc with special features, so they have extra stuff and they have the theatrical version and it's as cheap as it can possibly be. Then we think the only people who are going to want to have the six hours of documentaries are going to be the aficionados and presumably they're going to be happy that we're giving them an alternative version of the film. If the theatrical version is all you want then that's the only one you'll have to buy. If you want everything, you're going to get charged for it.

Q: What's the definitive version of these films?

JACKSON: The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material.

[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.

[hamchuck1]

i've mentioned this before about possibly shoddy releases. If you can fight the urge of the "day 1 pick up", you can always rent it and see if its worth it

I know this is easier said then done though when you really love the movie thats coming out.

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by rileyparrish

Probably pan & scaned to 1.78:1 and butchered with commercials.....

...and with station bugs floating around the lower third of the screen most of the time!

Doug

[radagast]

IF, and I say IF it turns out that the LOTR BDs are not as good as they could have been, the question will have to be asked: Then why the living **** did they postpone this from last year? Everyone thought that the postponement was to get the best possible result.

[Diesel]

WBShop has jacked the price up to $70

[hamchuck1]

Originally Posted by radagast

IF and I say IF it turns out that the LOTR BDs are not as good as they could have been, the question will have to be asked: Then why the living **** did they postpone this from last year? Everyone thought that the postponement was to get the best possible result.

if you keep the meat away from the tigers, they get hungrier

[Dase]

Originally Posted by Andes

I do the extended cuts because we have 30-40 minutes of footage that people are interested in, fans of the books. It's usually related to something that's in the book.

I guess that's why I myself consider the EE's the definitive versions, because I have been a HUGE fan of the books for over 25 years now, and will always be a fan of the books first. This is just me though .

Originally Posted by Andes

It's a legitimate part of the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and you can either have it lost forever or you can put an extended cut out. So I do these extended cuts thinking that people will like to see these scenes.

And with me he is spot on. I know the books very well so I love all of the additions and feel it makes the films more complete. Again, this is just me.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Diesel

WBShop has jacked the price up to $70

Maybe WB really is that stupid. How about Amazon?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by radagast

Maybe WB really is that stupid. How about Amazon?

Holding steady at $63.99 still.


I don't think they'll budge at this point until the B&M stores start lowering their prices and promoting their offers.

[robertc88]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Holding steady at $63.99 still.


I don't think they'll budge at this point until the B&M stores start lowering their prices and promoting their offers.

My guess? $49.99 at most B&M stores. I think that quite reasonable but I will not pay folks the difference if they decide to buy it if it is more!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by robertc88

My guess? $49.99 at most B&M stores.

That's the price point I need to cancel my WBShop pre-order when I got it in for $50.75.

....unless they decided to cancel it for me.

[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.