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

[n8boss87]

Originally Posted by Celerony

So what?
The studio has the full right do this, of course, but it makes no sense, it's forcing somebody to hide things as they are.

So...you don't get that one cannot burn necessary bridges, and must fight as Ken is doing to set things right in the interim. Review discs don't appear by magic.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Andes

I still plan to buy the blu-ray trilogy because it's the best version available until 2012. Any ideas how much the new EE blu set will cost? I'm assuming it will be in the $150+ range.

How much was the EE dvd box set on release date? I've never seen the EE so I'm hoping to find a cheap set on ebay.

I remember picking up the EE box sets when they were released for around $30; eventually they were selling them at Costco for $10. Since the TE's will have already have been released, I would imagine that the final "stable" price for the BD EE's will be around $50. I am predicting $30 for the TE's by Black Friday.

[Diesel]

Are any of you planning on actually contacting Warner's customer service (after the release of course and in a reasonable demeanor) about the poor quality of the transfer?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

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.

Has anyone investigated or explained the discrepancies between the high-def television broadcasts and the Blu-ray transfers? If we're truly dealing with a source issue, and this is the best 'FotR' can possibly look, how is it that the high-def TV broadcast showcases more fine detail in key shots than the BD transfer? If the DNR that's being discussed was present all along, how was it reduced or removed for the TV broadcast?

Please don't misunderstand. I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative -- there are many people, Jeff included, who are far more knowledgeable when it comes to source/master/print matters than me -- but I'm genuinely curious. I would really like to hear someone offer an explanation that addresses the Blu-ray/HD-broadcast discrepancies.

[Q?]

How about actual proof that Fellowship can indeed look better?
The flashbacks from Fellowship in TTT look better than the scenes in Fellowship, come on that actually has to mean that Fellowship can look just as good as the other two, right?

I mean.... RIGHT?

[Scorxpion]

The Question is they don't watch the movie before duplicating it and assign a release date.Why lately a couple of movies has been remastered and re release again.Why they can't figure it at first and release it later after it is fixed.Blu-ray disc is to enjoy premium experience you can get and not vice versa.

[Celerony]

Originally Posted by n8boss87

So...you don't get that one cannot burn necessary bridges, and must fight as Ken is doing to set things right in the interim. Review discs don't appear by magic.

I knew that already, you're telling me nothing new.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Are any of you planning on actually contacting Warner's customer service (after the release of course and in a reasonable demeanor) about the poor quality of the transfer?

I might..I'm already NOT planning on making a purchase. The thing with this is it's the same as Gladiator..there as anti-purchase hype all around and it sold well. So I'm not sure how WB will respond because this is going to bring in a lot of revenue on Warner's end.

[Jerec]

Well after this review I am definetly waiting for the EE's and hopefully the REMASTERED EE's at that!

What a load 2.5 for video in Fellowship!

These needed to be flawless!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

I might..I'm already NOT planning on making a purchase. The thing with this is it's the same as Gladiator..there as anti-purchase hype all around and it sold well. So I'm not sure how WB will respond because this is going to bring in a lot of revenue on Warner's end.

But people haven't even seen if the Gladiator remaster will look better. And all the reviewers say TTT and ROTK looks good. It looks like all where expecting Transformers PQ. But that will never be the case because LOTR was shot different and FOTR has always looked more soft then the other 2. So maybe it can't look better. Mr Jackson approved these and said they looked fantastic so he must know how the source looked like.
And obviously he is saying that these 3 was source material otherwise he wouldn't approve them

[Q?]

Originally Posted by mredman

But people haven't even seen if the Gladiator remaster will look better. And all the reviewers say TTT and ROTK looks good. It looks like all where expecting Transformers PQ. But that will never be the case because LOTR was shot different and FOTR has always looked more soft then the other 2. So maybe it can't look better. Mr Jackson approved these and said they looked fantastic so he must know how the source looked like.
And obviously he is saying that these 3 was source material otherwise he wouldn't approve them

But consider this.

Originally Posted by Q!

How about actual proof that Fellowship can indeed look better?
The flashbacks from Fellowship in TTT look better than the scenes in Fellowship, come on that actually has to mean that Fellowship can look just as good as the other two, right?

I mean.... RIGHT?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Q!

But consider this.

Busted!

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by mredman

But people haven't even seen if the Gladiator remaster will look better. And all the reviewers say TTT and ROTK looks good. It looks like all where expecting Transformers PQ. But that will never be the case because LOTR was shot different and FOTR has always looked more soft then the other 2. So maybe it can't look better. Mr Jackson approved these and said they looked fantastic so he must know how the source looked like.
And obviously he is saying that these 3 was source material otherwise he wouldn't approve them

I'm curious about the same thing because I'd rather have the theatrical cuts but if the extended will provide better quality in the future, I'll wait. But, am I wasting my time. For all we know, WB will release the extended with the same exact master and just add the extended scenes and some more extras. Think about it. If you're dissapointed with this boxed set, who's to say you won't be dissapointed with the next one?

[PeterTHX]

[QUOTE=Ernest Rister;3084593Because 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.[/quote]

True, but I'm also concerned about the live action catalog they control. Pulp Fiction is out in other territories. No BD release of Mary Poppins when the DVD came out, etc.

And they're DVD history is checkered: Hercules, Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Black Cauldron all exist in old, somewhat shoddy transfers.

And one of my favorites: The Rocketeer still exists as a cropped (2:1 instead of 2.35) LD-era transfer (letterbox only with EE) made in 1991.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Q!

But consider this.

consider this.
Those flashbacks was in TTT and therefor made for TTT and was produced the same year as TTT.
I bet those FOTR flashbacks looks better because they were processed the same time TTT was made

[Q?]

Originally Posted by mredman

consider this.
Those flashbacks was in TTT and therefor made for TTT and was produced the same year as TTT.
I bet those FOTR flashbacks looks better because they were processed the same time TTT was made

So are you saying that Fellowship can look better?

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Q!

So are you saying that Fellowship can look better?

No i am not. Not on that master it was produced read this from Bill Hunt:

The third thing you should know about this Blu-ray release, is that the A/V presentation quality is very, very good. The films are presented in full 1080p video (using the VC-1 codec), in the original 2.35:1 scope aspect ratio. To my eye, Fellowship isn't quite as crisp and detailed looking as the other two films, though I suspect this is less a BD mastering issue and has more to do with the film's actual post-production. Fellowship was completed first, on a tighter budget, and I recall from the theatres that there were shots here and there that looked a little more digital than the rest. [Editor's Note: I've compared it to an HD satellite broadcast recording of the film I have, and the same issues are visible there too.] The transfer is still solid and quite watchable. It's just that Two Towers and Return of the King are absolutely fantastic, with abundant detail and crisp, refined textures. Color and contrast is outstanding on all three. There's a little tiny bit of DNR applied here and there, as there is on almost every film these days, but I don't find it to be an issue quality-wise

[Q?]

Originally Posted by mredman

No i am not. Not on that master it was produced read this from Bill Hunt:

I've read that from Bill Hunt, I know that.
So we agree that it can look better.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I have the theatrical version on preorder. If the extended versions come out later on, I will get them as well.

[billzfan]

Anyone here know who has the best deal out there for the boxed set?