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

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

No offense implied, I was just shooting for what I thought most people have in their homes

Thankfully, I'm pretty sure I could still spot all the issues I mentioned on a 40" TV too. Next time I'll reference a 19" CRT

Oh, I see, so you are saying MY TV sucks?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

No wonder your reviews suck. I'm on a roll today.

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

So I've heard. Never took a chance on #2.

It wasn't quite as bad as some people said.

BUT...if you only mildly liked part 1, you will probably be in the camp who doesn't like part 2.

If you hate part 1, then you'll probably loathe part 2.


(I love the first one and just like the 2nd...but it has some big flaws.)

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Oh, I see, so you are saying MY TV sucks?

You really are on a roll

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by emgesp

I couldn't have said it better.

The greatest excuse for DNR, "Oh no you have it all wrong, the movie was shot soft. The Director wanted wax puppets."

Hey! Lets keep the language and personal jabs to a minimum, shall we?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I liked Ken's review, but come on, everyone knows THIS is the greatest review ever written.

That one deserves an award. I was eating that one up. Every sentance is a punchline.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Should I buy this?

No.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Old Bones

Fact #1 - People in the "know" who have seen all 3 movies on blu state the 1st one is the worst , and the second is a little better , and the 3rd is better than the 2nd.

Fact #2 - Most poeple don't realize that these 3 movies were shot with the same equipment , same director , same crew , same sharrpness , etc , etc , etc. , in one long continuous shoot.

So - The 3 different masters were not done at equal times , or with equal care , or on equal equipment.

So - Warner Bros. continue to be the most inconsistant Studio in Movie history , they don't a flaming rats ass about quality as long as many consumers with a mediocrity complex give them their money.

So -

Dont let the animal rights activists hear you talking like that.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

What Moron would write this Bullshit?

Cocktails?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

[Show spoiler]

It wasn't quite as bad as some people said.

BUT...if you only mildly liked part 1, you will probably be in the camp who doesn't like part 2.

If you hate part 1, then you'll probably loathe part 2.


(I love the first one and just like the 2nd...but it has some big flaws.)



You really are on a roll

[jw]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Out of sheer curiosity, have they instructed you take take down screencaps on all Warner titles or just on the Lord of the Rings trilogy specifically?

Its happened before, look at the Batman Anthology.

[R3P0]

Canceled my Pre-order last night... Cannot believe I actually did this but i wont shell out for these movies a 3rd time if the video is crap

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Out of sheer curiosity, have they instructed you take take down screencaps on all Warner titles or just on the Lord of the Rings trilogy specifically?

Originally Posted by jwbbud

Its happened before, look at the Batman Anthology.

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Warner isn't keen on websites using their own screenshots, and has instructed us to replace them with a pre-approved series of studio images. As you can see though, the images they have provided are not 1080p screenshots. For now, we've loaded these images as an interim solution until we're able to resolve the issue.

I'd like to apologize for any inconvenience this causes any of you. Rest assured, we're in contact with representatives from the studio, and we're hoping to have the situation resolved soon. Thanks as always for your patience and your posts.

Wow the screenshots they sent you are so tiny you'd need a microscope to see any detail.

[svenge]

How is it any different that the actual video encode? There's no detail there either...

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Yeah, I remember that. I didn't say much during that whole thing because honestly I don't really care about those movies. I always thought the first one was way overrated (and the others after that? Eeesh.) I was just wondering if they were keeping it to this title as in the past or making some new blanket policy that applied to all of their titles.

It's unfortunate but it is their right, they own the property.

Anyway, the review itself is extremely well written and as thorough as even the hardest core AV nut would like so the screenshots are merely footnotes. I was just wondering is this had some kind of bearing on screens in reviews being posted in the future.

Tons of Warner titles have been absolutely spectacular, especially their "classic" catalog, look at Wizard of Oz for Christ's sake. The review points out the minor flaws (as it should) but that is a fantastic presentation none the less. Not displaying screens in those types of reviews is almost a tragedy because it's always good to see how great they look.... and North by Northwest, almost unbelievable how great that turned out... and even aside from the "old" titles - Blade Runner (one of my all times favorites, I could not have been happier with how that turned out honestly - I bought two Blu briefcases as nutty as that sounds - one to watch and one to "have",) the list goes on and on...

[Sith]

Warner makes me want to throw up sometimes. I still think they should just pay Disney to release there blu rays, so that they are done right.

Yeah Wizard was awesome, but they also wanted $60 to get it, Disney gives us A+ quality with coupons half the time, look at Toy Story.

[moreno]

so.. was this opportunity used to tell Warner that the blurays dont look that great, and that they should do a better job?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Sith

Yeah Wizard was awesome, but they also wanted to fist us for $60 to get it, Disney gives us A+ quality with coupons half the time, look at Toy Story.

That's not really fair though to be honest - Disney/Pixar movies are more expensive than the rest because they include all of that other superfluous nonsense along with it so they can charge more. Not that I'm complaining, it's worth it given what they look like.

Would you rather pay 60 bucks for a fantastic Wizard of Oz or 20 bucks for an "ugh" one?

If you choose the latter you probably don't care enough about that movie to buy it either way. There are so friggin' few absolutely classic movies out there that when they go all out remastering it and giving us the best it can possibly be, yeah, I don't mind at all paying a premium for it. It costs them money, a lot of it, to make these things.

I love the LotR movies. Would I rather pay around 20 bucks for each for what it is now or more a premium for a completely reminted version? There is not doubt in my mind what I would choose.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

That's not really fair though to be honest - Disney/Pixar movies are more expensive than the rest because they include all of that other superfluous nonsense along with it so they can charge more. Not that I'm complaining, it's worth it given what they look like.

Would you rather pay 60 bucks for a fantastic Wizard of Oz or 20 bucks for an "ugh" one?

If you choose the latter you probably don't care enough about that movie to buy it either way. There are so friggin' few absolutely classic movies out there that when they go all out remastering it and giving us the best it can possibly be, yeah, I don't mind at all paying a premium for it. It costs them money, a lot of it, to make these things.

I love the LotR movies. Would I rather pay around 20 bucks for each for what it is now or more a premium for a completely reminted version? There is not doubt in my mind what I would choose.

This doesn't make sense. For one, I bought Wizard when it was on sale for $16.49 a couple of weeks ago on Amazon and it's the same movie disc as the $60 one. And Disney movies usually cost less, especially when they first come out. Most people got both Toy Story movies for a little less than $20.00 on this site.

I'm far from poor, look up where Seal Beach is, I'd pay the extra just like you. But they should at least give a good effort with these classic films, it's b.s.

I can see Warner not giving there all for every movie because they release far more than Disney, but for these there is absolutely no plausible excuse

[wallendo]

Despite all the negative reviews, I will still buy LOTR on blu-ray, because:

1) I don't own the TE's on DVD, and rarely have the time to watch the EE's I own on DVD.

2) On a 125 inch screen, even a slight improvement in PQ can make a big difference.

I do hope, however, that Peter Jackson et al will try to improve the video presentation on the EE's in ywo years.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by wallendo

Despite all the negative reviews, I will still buy LOTR on blu-ray, because:

1) I don't own the TE's on DVD, and rarely have the time to watch the EE's I own on DVD.

2) On a 125 inch screen, even a slight improvement in PQ can make a big difference.

I do hope, however, that Peter Jackson et al will try to improve the video presentation on the EE's in ywo years.

If it wasn't my anniversary 04/07 I'd probably wait. But my wife already knows there coming out, and I'm pretty sure she'll be hooking me up.
She better I just dropped $140.00 for some custom made Nike running shoes for her that she got to design.