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

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Sith

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

I agree that they should give a "Good effort" for these films, and I also think that when they do they should be able (without a bunch of people pissing and moaning) to charge a tiny premium (and it is really small, given how few of these types of movies there are) for their effort.

Where you happened to be able to find a certain title the cheapest has nothing to do with it. Tons of different sites have different deals, that is irrelevant.

[ddgtr]

I get the fact that the screenshots are their property. However, what do they think we're gonna do with them?? Look at them, then imagine the movies so that we won't have to rent/buy them?? Retards...

So still no word on the Extended Edition release date? I am not making the same mistake twice, I bought both theatrical and ee in dvd... Warner = Evil.

I understand production, mastering etc cost money. But what they are doing is highway robbery. If they're as honest as they say, then release both versions, charge more for the extended one and let the people decide. Like many of you, I would GLADLY pay a premium for it!

[Sith]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Where you happened to be able to find a certain title the cheapest has nothing to do with it. Tons of different sites have different deals, that is irrelevant.

It's far from irrelevant if your not looking to pay $60 for one movie. When
you were saying would you pay $60 for a great Wizard or $20 for an ugh one, I paid less than $20.00 and it's the same disc everyone that spent $60 got.

As to your other point, yeah I'd be more than willing to pay a premium for a better transfer. I just wish we were getting that option now.

As far as the Disney movies, they're consistently reasonably priced no matter where you get them when they come out, and always great quality, Warner could learn a thing or two from that.

[kdo]

have to admit...this forum has become so entertaining...it might be better than the movies themselves!

[Fighter]

Originally Posted by kdo

have to admit...this forum has become so entertaining...it might be better than the movies themselves!

I highly doubt it!

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by ddgtr

I get the fact that the screenshots are their property. However, what do they think we're gonna do with them??

Sell them to the Taliban!


Think about it!

Originally Posted by Sith

It's far from irrelevant if your not looking to pay $60 for one movie. When
you were saying would you pay $60 for a great Wizard or $20 for an ugh one, I paid less than $20.00 and it's the same disc everyone that spent $60 got.

As to your other point, yeah I'd be more than willing to pay a premium for a better transfer. I just wish we were getting that option now.

As far as the Disney movies, they're consistently reasonably priced no matter where you get them when they come out, and always great quality, Warner could learn a thing or two from that.

My point is a friggin' simple and dancing around it doesn't do much.

If a studio goes "all out" to transfer a film to this format they deserve a small premium per disc sold for their effort, because it costs money to do so. That's all.

You'll see in about 1,000,000 retail stores reflecting Warner's effort with Wizard of Oz as MSRP, as they should.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Fighter

I highly doubt it!

Doubt this -
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

[Boz]

I think it is not a very good move by Warner.

Despite of the quality of these Blu-ray, I had pre-ordered the Steelbook Trilogy from Germany, and I was thinking of buying the 3 Steelbook from France too.
A few days ago I thought of buying the Future Shop Jumbo Steel too.

I was going to spend about $200 on this title.

But the Warner's behaviour made me change my mind.

I did canceled the amazon.de pre-order, I'm not "watching" anymore the Future Shop Steelbook in "my ebay", and I will not buy the France trilogy.

That was not a smart move by Warner.

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by Sith

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 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, other than they suck.

If Disney were in charge, you wouldn't even have the Lord of the Rings coming out, because they wouldn't bother with it. I love Disney movies as much as the next person, but you do realize they've only released 5 catalog titles in the past 6 months, right?

Snow White, Monsters Inc., 10 Things I Hate About You and Toy Story 1 and 2.

And Disney only have 2 catalog titles officially announced for release in the next 6 months: Armageddon and Tombstone.

Are you also aware how many theatrically released films Disney skips on giving the blu-ray treatment? They're by far the worst about doing so. Warner Bros. nearly puts everything they release on blu. Even unimportant direct-to-video releases.

So, yeah, Warner Bros. may make some mistakes here and there (tv seasons still without lossless audio and the occasional mediocre transfer), but at least they're supporting the format with a steady chain of content. All of the studios release the occasional mediocre or bad transfer, though. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Like I've said in this thread, repeatedly: If you want to gripe about this transfer - have at it. But the whole "Warner Bros. is the devil" stuff is getting old.

[Celerony]

But inconsequently dictating to remove screenshots is just dumb, it makes no sense, makes thousands of people spit on you.

Couldn't you play it a bit harder, Blu-ray.com?
Just say: First tell us a reason, because telling no reason has no reason!

[gaeljet]

Originally Posted by Celerony

But inconsequently dictating to remove screenshots is just dumb, it makes no sense, makes thousands of people spit on you.

Couldn't you play it a bit harder, Blu-ray.com?
Just say: First tell us a reason, because telling no reason has no reason!

indeed

[Batman1980]

Jeff Kleist again -
And you still haven't proven that they failed. What I'm seeing is a lot of people with expectations that weren't met, or quite possibly ever could have been met given the inherent characteristics of the films. As has been noted, FOTR was likely taken from an archive print, because a DI doesn't exist for it like the other 2. In addition, while all 3 films were shot at once, their post production was done a year and 2 years apart receptively. That's a marathon when it comes to technology.

It's these kinds of reactions that make it so hard to pull them out of their foxholes when there IS a real problem.

For people who mentioned earlier that there are many excellent Super35 productions btw, not only are many of those quite different (less "guerilla" style shooting), but Super35 photography is light years beyond what it was even 5 years ago today, especially with the new stocks formulated for DI.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Fellowship is my favorite of the 3 and the one I think has the most re-watch value. I'd rank Two Towers as #2 and King last for me.

I agree, though I don't rank the films according to re-watch value. I think Fellowship is the most cohesive, disciplined, and focused of the adaptations, while the filmmakers decided to become more co-creative with the second and third films and deviated from the source at their own peril. None of the films are perfect - the decision to turn Gimli into the comedy relief still rankles to this day - and the weakest moments of Fellowship all center around Gimli (not the beard, nobody tosses a dwarf, etc.) - but Fellowship has a gravity and weight to it, not to mention a breathless narrative structure, that the other films lack. My heart is still broken over the decision to scale back the adventures of Sam and Frodo in Mordor in exchange for the focus on Gondor...my favorite chapter in the entire series centers on Sam and his temptation by the Ring, followed by his solo rescue mission in the tower of Cirith Ungol. Such powerful writing, and it's all gone in the theatrical contractually obligated version, the extended cut restores some of those scenes, but what a giant missed opportunity. Also, because they took Frodo to such a dark place in The Two Towers (the scene where Frodo attacks Sam happens in the Cirith Ungol scene in the books) he really didn't have much further to fall in Return of the King, which is the whole point of that book. Frodo's fall was stunted so Boyens and Walsh could impose some cheap theatrics to give The Two Towers a sense of a climax...it isn't until Cirith Ungol that Frodo attacks Sam when Frodo learns Sam has the ring. It's a powerful moment. In order to create a climax, they change Faramir's character, they deviate from the book, all to have a Frodo/Sam climax...and I have to say this -- in Return of the King, Merry tells Pippin that "the enemy thinks you have the ring". Well, how does that jive with the fact that hours earlier, Frodo held the ring out for the taking to a Ringwraith/Nazgul in Osgiliath? Is the enemy so stupid that they would believe that Frodo flapped his arms and flew to the Gap of Rohan?

Oy. Fellowship is the best of the films because it is the most faithful to the tone and spirit of Tolkien, while there are obvious departures. The Two Towers and Return of the King betray a sort of arrogance on the part of the creative team. When Boyens boasted on the commentary track of Fellowship that she improved Tolkien's work, I suspected we were going to be in for trouble with the latter films. Frodo ordering Sam to go home in ROTK is just another example.

Having said all that, these are probably the best adaptations of this work that we are ever going to get, and I'm thankful for them. There are annoyances, to be sure, but the films are wonderful. I just think the first film is the best of the bunch. Dwarf tossing and all.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I love how people completely disregard the facts of the films history, how it was processed and made. Projectionists in this very thread who ran prints of FOTR have said that it has always had a soft look to it, while the other two did not mostly because of the post production process, which was different between the first and the other two films. This is a part of the film. I myself, who saw the film upwards of 10 times in theaters, can attest to the fact that the film always looked soft and somewhat artificial in theaters. It was not shot or processed to look ultra sharp and grainy like something that Michael Bay or Tony Scott would make. The Blu-Ray, from everything I've seen and heard seems to replicate the original look of the theatrical experience and in many ways, outdoes the theatrical prints. And let's not forget that Jackson approved these transfers as well. Ultimately, I think people have just gotten their hopes up wanting this release to be something that it can't be and I think those of us who understand the history of the film and the way it was shot and processed, will love seeing these films in the best presentations yet made available to the public.

Thank you, that is all.

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I agree that many people just think that the 'The Lord Of The Rings'-films
would just look like "magical" on Blu-Ray, like super-stellar-clear and amazingly clean and sharp,
because "that's what such a film would look like".
But probably forgetting the fact that it's still shot on film.

I'm not saying I know what it should look like, but many people think that way.
Similarly to how many of the more regular consumers think that for example... "older films weren't shot in HD."
Of course most people here don't, but it's a similar misconception.

The VAST majority of people complaining know all this, and that is NOT the issue. Anynoe who has seen the film knows it has kind of soft look, that is not the issue. The HDTV vs blu ray shots speak volumes. Warner having reviews pull screen shots speaks volumes. Read Kens post again..........as Ken eluded to, you can see where the intentional look of the film stops and the unneeded/unwanted processing (and other issues he mentions) begins. One is welcomed, but the latter is not

Originally Posted by mredman

well it is definitely not as bad as he says. He is full of himself

I disagree. He seemed genuine in his opinion. It is only one opinion, but.........

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I haven't seen the Blu-Ray yet, so I can't comment yet, but in general the film has always been soft which could inadvertently be misconstrued as DNR. The film print itself did have an artificial look to it as well, I'd like to point out.

Read Kens latest post again.........you are missing the point. Read this paragraph.........

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Just wanted to briefly chime in. 'FotR' is, and has always been, a softer film. A fact I hope I effectively alluded to when I mentioned Jackson's shooting techniques in my video analysis. However, I feel confident that I was able to separate Jackson's intentions from technical issues with the release. It's a fine line, but DNR-smeared textures look quite different than soft textures. Moreover, while the DNR is getting a lot of attention in this forum, it's only a small part of the reason I gave the transfer a lower score. Watch the bright skies when the Fellowship first hits the snowy mountains - you'll see flickering, wavering, a dash of compression artifacts, and what not. Watch the Council of Elrond. Note the wide shots of the assembly (a bit of color bleeding and EE around Elrond, fluctuating textures in the leaves of the trees, smeary details) and the closeups of the newly formed fellowship (again, not soft, just... digitized and unsightly - some posters actually thought I had posted an upscaled shot from the DVD). Hop back to the opening Shire scenes. Notice the slight jitteriness in the image? The way the titles shift? The wavering, flickering, and inconsistencies that beset Frodo's face, sometimes in the same static shot?

Originally Posted by mredman

It seem like some will never be satisfied. Yes FOTR has always been soft. And if it has always been soft, of course it will look like that on blu ray as well. But in the best presentation it can

This is exactly why a lot of us are pissed.........it is not even close to the "best presentation it can be". Read the bolded part of Kens post above...........When a crappy HDTV feed looks noticably better than a nice modern blu ray, there is a problem, and we are not getting the best this film can look on blu ray, not even close

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

If Disney were in charge, you wouldn't even have the Lord of the Rings coming out, because they wouldn't bother with it. I love Disney movies as much as the next person, but you do realize they've only released 5 catalog titles in the past 6 months, right?

The Disney animated features are among the highest selling home video titles of all time. Disney's earnings per catalog title are the highest in the entire industry. Warner Bros. makes 25% per catalog title versus Disney. Because the demand for each of their animated titles is so high, Disney staggers the release of these titles so that people can buy them incrementally -- they don't flood the market. They don't have a product dump. In this way, they make every release an event. I realize the Entitlement Generation has issues with this - they want everything immediately, on order, and go grump ass when they don't get it - but Disney is a relatively small catalog studio compared to Warner Bros, and they maximize the value of their titles.

Snow White, Monsters Inc., 10 Things I Hate About You[/i] and Toy Story 1 and [i]2.

All in six months, and you forgot Princess and the Frog, perhaps the best Disney animated feature since Walt's body exceeded room temperature, as well as the Miyazaki roll-out.

And Disney only have 2 catalog titles officially announced for release in the next 6 months: Armageddon and Tombstone.

Not true, check your facts.

Are you also aware how many theatrically released films Disney skips on giving the blu-ray treatment? They're by far the worst about doing so. Warner Bros. nearly puts everything they release on blu. Even unimportant direct-to-video releases.

Again, not true. While I think it would be a service to all of mankind that the prints for titles like G-Force, Jonas Brothers, High School Musical, and Hannah Montana were destroyed and their burning cinders scattered to the winds, it is a fact these all came to Blu-Ray day and date with their DVD counterparts. Disney's theatrical releases come to DVD and Blu-Ray, and they have released four of their prized animated features so far.

Like I've said in this thread, repeatedly: If you want to gripe about this transfer - have at it. But the whole "Warner Bros. is the devil" stuff is getting old.

So is Disney hate, but that already got old in the 60's.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Not true, check your facts.

Got a link? Because according to this site, as of right now only Tombstone, Armageddon, and Beauty & The Beast have been announced for future release.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Got a link? Because according to this site, as of right now only Tombstone, Armageddon, and Beauty & The Beast have been announced for future release.

Do you really believe Disney will only release three catalog titles for the rest of the year? Come on...announcements or not, that is ludicrous. Disney, Touchstone, Miramax...these are all "Disney" owned production companies. It's March, we've got 9 months to go -- do you seriously think that out of all these production arms, only three titles are coming out on Blu Ray?

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by ernest rister

it's march, we've got 7 months to go --

:d

[denger76]

I cancelled my pre-order after reading the LOTR Trilogy review. I prefer the EE versions anyway but was looking forward to an amazing P/Q for the pictures. While the A/Q is just as important I can't base a purchase soley on that aspect of the BR. I will never understand why a studio would not provide the best product possible for timeless movies (17 Oscars in total). Shame on you WB!!! Do you really think that consumers are fooled into thinking this is the best you can produce? All I can say is WB needs to redeem themselves by releasing the LOTR Trilogy EE versions as quickly as possible in the best A/Q and P/Q available. For the love of money is the root of all evil!

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Do you really believe Disney will only release three catalog titles for the rest of the year? Come on...announcements or not, that is ludicrous. Disney, Touchstone, Miramax...these are all "Disney" owned production companies. It's March, we've got 7 months to go -- do you seriously think that out of all these production arms, only three titles are coming out on Blu Ray?

He said that Disney only officially announced 2 catalog titles announced for the next six months. This was true.

Of course there will be more, but you're defending Disney so much you're not reading what people are writing.