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

[Emotiva]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Not true!! We might have a month to buy and watch them!

Oh okay a month sounds good, thanks for the info, I got really scared just now lol

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

I do see some grain scrubbing in some of the screen caps from Fellowship (mostly taking place in Bag End for some reason), but otherwise the movie looks just the same to me as it always has. This includes the overall "softness" of the movie that everyone's complaining about. Even when I was watching DVDs on my standard def tube tv back in the early 2000s and everything looked "razor sharp", Fellowship was still a soft movie - just as it had been in theaters. It's just the way the movie looks.

To my eyes (based on the screencaps), the other films look awesome. Displayed on my HDTV, they obliterate the dvds a thousand times over. They're sharp, detailed, and as glorious as I could have asked for.

Personally, I have no idea how any reviewer could score Fellowship lower than Gladiator - which looked absolutely atrocious (all that Edge Enhancement!).

[teamneedle]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Hahahaha, man, I forgot how much I loved that review.



Even the studio itself admitted it was "terrible."

seriously- ign is nothing but a bunch of overweight gamers that have undeveloped opinions of media that get treated to gallons of ben and jerry's ice cream for giving good reviews-

it doesn't help that fox owns ign- bias much?

[Emotiva]

Originally Posted by teamneedle

seriously- ign is nothing but a bunch of overweight gamers that have undeveloped opinions of media that get treated to gallons of ben and jerry's ice cream for giving good reviews-


it doesn't help that fox owns ign- bias much?

Wow does Fox really own IGN? If thats the case I wont visit their site anymore

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Why? Why do you care how many people buy, or don't buy something????

I don't think the "People don't buy it, the studios will be forced to put out better transfer" argument is the only one to consider..... I think it's more likely that "People don't buy it, people like George Lucas won't see a point of releasing Star Wars because the market share of Blu-ray isn't big enough yet"

If you take the #1 selling Blu-ray title ever (whatever that may be) make it into a trilogy, and then double the number sold despite being an expensive box set....... I bet people would be much more excited about the potential sales, and would bring their films to Blu-ray....... Many like Lucas, are waiting for Blu-ray to hold more of a stake in the market..... it's still early, and poor sales don't help the matter.

I have said this over and over, studios are really showing that they either don't have the funds or the inclination to put out the best transfers on EVERY movie. I believe the Blu-ray format will go down in history as something of "woulda, coulda, shoulda". As I've suspected all along, the format is too expensive for studios to actually do the right thing by the film. People will balk at me claiming you can't just dump the kind of money you need for every film, but I say then why bother supporting the format. The industry have pushed a format that clearly is capable of a grand viewing experience, one that REQUIRES, I say again, REQUIRES.......as in mandatory and no question about it, that movie transfers be absolute top notch. With Blu-ray/1080p it's like having a high-end stereo system, you put in a bad recording and it just gets exposed for the crap that it is. Same here, bad transfers get exposed for the frauds they are. People, for God's sake, have some freak'n integrity and self respect.

[teamneedle]

Originally Posted by Emotiva

Wow does Fox really own IGN? If thats the case I wont visit their site anymore

yes, and rottentomatoes.com

[42041]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Fellowship was still a soft movie - just as it had been in theaters. It's just the way the movie looks.

Many movies look a lot worse in theaters than it'd be possible to make them look on home video/digital cinema. Lots of quality loss between negative and cinema screen that could be avoided. I guess you could make a case for a blu-ray looking like it did theatrically, but I'm guessing if Peter Jackson had the technological capability to do a full DI at the time he would have wanted a consistent level of quality between all the three movies.

[CYMBOL]

A shame to read the poor pic review on this site. Fellowship gets the lowest score and that is my favorite.

I also happen to like the Theatrical Cuts better - looks like I'll be renting these to see what I think about the pic. Sucks.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by teamneedle

yes, and rottentomatoes.com

Yeah but Rottentomatoes doesn't actually do reviews do they?

Don't they just collect a whole bunch of them in one central location to create a review score average?

[dborgill]

I am still trying not to believe how bad FOTR will look.. then I saw this from Ken's screenshots:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...174&position=6

Wow... looks like an upscaled DVD. BOOOOO!

BUT.. looking at the TTT and ROTK shots, at least we can be excited about that. Fellowship is on par content-wise with ROTK for me though. TTT is my least fave. ARGH!

[DaViD Boulet]

Good luck getting a budget to release anything with that perspective. There are always limitations, no matter what the consumers want. The studios can push and push, but ultimately there is a need to stay within certain parameters.

Not-pushing the DNR button doesn't cost more money. While a new telecine and digital recomposition would have cost $$$, at the very least, having a high-bit-rate VC1 blu-ray disc look less detailed than it's low bit-rate HDTV MPEG2 counterpart speaks volumes about how the current release, even using the existing master, could have been improved without spending a dime.

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yeah but Rottentomatoes doesn't actually do reviews do they?

Don't they just collect a whole bunch of them in one central location to create a review score average?

yep

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by dborgill

I am still trying not to believe how bad FOTR will look.. then I saw this from Ken's screenshots:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...174&position=6

Wow... looks like an upscaled DVD. BOOOOO!

!

That's a big reason for the heated debate that happened earlier...... "People trying not to believe" It's tough when you realize something you love is flawed.......

And for that screenshot..... I'm still waiting for it to finish loading..... it's all blurry

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yeah but Rottentomatoes doesn't actually do reviews do they?

Don't they just collect a whole bunch of them in one central location to create a review score average?

Right, but I've seen some inconsistencies in classifying a review "fresh" or "rotten".

For example, in a review I read a while back, the reviewer gave a film a 3/5, but RT counted it as a "rotten" vote.

[DJ Manyak]

really 2012 ?

[teamneedle]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yeah but Rottentomatoes doesn't actually do reviews do they?

Don't they just collect a whole bunch of them in one central location to create a review score average?

true, but they do let some shady people become "certified" reviewers

there are some really chinsey reviews on there sometimes-

they let anyone who can create a geocities webpage be considered a journalist for avatar to boost it's ratings

[dborgill]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

That's a big reason for the heated debate that happened earlier...... "People trying not to believe" It's tough when you realize something you love is flawed.......

And for that screenshot..... I'm still waiting for it to finish loading..... it's all blurry

Seriously... I haven't seen something that horrid on Blu for quite some time. I guarantee it didn't look like that in the theatre or the HDTV broadcast.

[Bullseye]

Fair enough but why should people buy inferior transfers just to help sales? If somethings not right the only way to let the studios know is by not buying this. This is not a classic title it's a relatively new trilogy and there is simply no reason for a poor transfer.

And we shouldn't base everything on Lucas who has always mllked his franchise for everything it's worth. How long was DVD out before he decided to release them. I say fair play to Cameron.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Why? Why do you care how many people buy, or don't buy something????

I don't think the "People don't buy it, the studios will be forced to put out better transfer" argument is the only one to consider..... I think it's more likely that "People don't buy it, people like George Lucas won't see a point of releasing Star Wars because the market share of Blu-ray isn't big enough yet"

If you take the #1 selling Blu-ray title ever (whatever that may be) make it into a trilogy, and then double the number sold despite being an expensive box set....... I bet people would be much more excited about the potential sales, and would bring their films to Blu-ray....... Many like Lucas, are waiting for Blu-ray to hold more of a stake in the market..... it's still early, and poor sales don't help the matter.

[radagast]

What I want to know is whether or not the PQ on FOTR is good enough that you can see the car driving off with a dust cloud on a dirt road, off in the distance, while Frodo and Sam are leaving the Shire.

Just kidding.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Mike2060

Did the person who said Contact looked fine sit like 1.5 screen width from their display? Or did they sit 3 screen widths away? You kind of got to that in the second paragraph. I've looked at the screen caps of Contact on this site and they don't look great but they certainly wouldn't look awful 2 screen widths away from the display.

If that is the case with Contact, wouldn't the same thing apply for the Lord of the Rings movies?

Originally Posted by radagast

Are you sure PJ saw all 5 masters? I think anyone would get weary after watching 5 versions of 9 hours+ of movie material. There might have been infighting between different interests in Warner. There is probably a better version waiting in the wings to get people to double-dip.

For every master that PJ didn't like, Warner made a new one. So I guess he saw most of them, if not everything. Otherwise he wouldn't have told them to re-do it so many times. And Warner wouldn't have obliged if they didn't want the director to be happy.