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

[petmic10]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Thanks for pointing that out, Quasi. I'm still curious about the differences in the level of fine detail, but I'm glad you're reminding everyone that the HD broadcast is still inferior in most regards.

That's just it, why the fine detail on the broadcast version and not
for the Blu-ray. While I agree, if you factor in the superb audio from
the Blu-ray version it clearly is better overall. I just feel Warner had
a chance to hit it out of the park with this release and they only made
it to the warning track.

[Cinemaddict]

This release sounds very disappointing in just about every area. It sounds, in a word, lazy. According to HDD, they still have the old previews for the Extended Editions from the initial release. That's just lazy. They didn't even bother updating it.

For a "9-disc release," it sounds like a big fat pile of nothing. The only extras are ported from the DVD, and they suck anyway. Sounds like the PQ of the movies themselves might not be that much better than an upconverted DVD.

So do I buy? I really feel like I shouldn't, but the fan in me is still screaming YES.

I'm not that upset about them being the theatrical cuts, because I think the EEs are overrated. The Fellowship EE is better. I'm not sure about the Two Towers EE. But for RotK, there is no doubt in my mind that the theatrical cut is much better.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions without having the facts as to why the transfer was done in a certain manner.

If you like to let other people do your thinking for you, don't get the movie. Your problem is solved. And you can continue complaining about something you haven't seen while you live in logical fallacy land.

[radagast]

And to think only a few weeks ago, posting on this thread had died down to almost nothing.

[Damage Inc.]

Looks like the MPEG-2-version has similar colors to the DVD-version, which would be more pale.
However it's of course much more detailed, I guess the MPEG-2-version would be from an HDTV-recording?...

Anyway, the Blu-ray-version looks a little softer, as the MPEG-2-version looks sharper compared to Blu-ray.
But as said before, it shows a little more of the flaws because of that too.
However, the Blu-ray-version has warmer and more natural colors.
I think the Blu-ray is the way to go between the 3 options shown.
Cause first of all it has the colors correct and it doesn't differ thát much in detail.
Perhaps the slightly softer image might even do good to the style of the films.
Still very detailed though.

It could or should be better I think, but it's not bad at all.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by radagast

And to think only a few weeks ago, posting on this thread had died down to almost nothing.

Yeah, if it were only given the release it deserves, people would just be saying "cool, it's reference quality" and moving along.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by mredman

Mr Jackson approved these...

If we're going to bring up the Collider article, where Jackson said:

"I’ve seen the Blu-ray as they sent it to me to approve.."

He also said after the fact:

"I think they were just going to do the theatrical version first."

Hmmmmm, so which version did Jackson 'approve', so to speak? Does he not know himself which version he approved. He says 'the Blu-ray'. Which blu-ray?

Oh and the there's this little nugget:

"I am not in charge of the Blu-ray, Warner Home Video is."

So yeah, director approved...

[_ck]

WB making Blu-ray.com (and others?) take down screenshots just SCREAMS of guilt. There's no doubt in my mind that they know they screwed up this release, this is practically the same as admitting it. No way was this the best it could've looked as some are suggesting, and anyone still buying this release is a fool.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Looks like the MPEG-2-version has similar colors to the DVD-version, which would be more pale.
However it's of course much more detailed, I guess the MPEG-2-version would be from an HDTV-recording?...

People thought the HDTV version of The Fifth Element (pre-remastering) looked "more detailed", ended up just being edge/detail enhancement.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by _ck

WB making Blu-ray.com (and others?) take down screenshots just SCREAMS of guilt.

Not at all. It screams of a legal department that has contracts for actor images to protect. If places they send discs to for official reviews put those contracts in jeopardy they will no longer send that website review copies. If they were "guilty" about the discs they would have made them remove the text of the review as well.

[MCT]

Originally Posted by _ck

WB making Blu-ray.com (and others?) take down screenshots just SCREAMS of guilt.

precisely. They've essentially admitted guilt with that move. Bet you if that review had been littered with praise, those screenshots would still be there.

edit: it's probably a combination of what the poster above me said and this.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

People thought the HDTV version of The Fifth Element (pre-remastering) looked "more detailed", ended up just being edge/detail enhancement.

Well said, a little tired of people claiming the HDTV broadcast trumps the blu-ray.

Originally Posted by captveg

Not at all. It screams of a legal department that has contracts for actor images to protect. If places they send discs to for official reviews put those contracts in jeopardy they will no longer send that website review copies. If they were "guilty" about the discs they would have made them remove the text of the review as well.

Yup, EVERYTHING comes into consideration in HD, even tiny things like pimples, birthmarks, scars and stress bags under people's eyes.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

People thought the HDTV version of The Fifth Element (pre-remastering) looked "more detailed", ended up just being edge/detail enhancement.

But this is clearly SD compared to HD, there are actually details, not just extra sharpness or anything.

[dborgill]

So, Ken Brown or whoever else can answer this question, how can we contact Warner with a reasoned and calm statement of our disappointment? I will do this, if necessary AFTER I watch the first film but want to be prepared nonetheless

[svenge]

How much do you wanna bet WB's going to set up a e-mail sorting algorithm to shunt all incoming LotR complaints straight to the "junk" folder?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by svenge

How much do you wanna bet WB's going to set up a e-mail sorting algorithm to shunt all incoming LotR complaints straight to the "junk" folder?

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by svenge

How much do you wanna bet WB's going to set up a e-mail sorting algorithm to shunt all incoming LotR complaints straight to the "junk" folder?

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and I doubt they'll do it. This is probably the most popular film franchise they own rights to and they would do well to hear out the polite and calm public in this case.

[bfellow]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

People thought the HDTV version of The Fifth Element (pre-remastering) looked "more detailed", ended up just being edge/detail enhancement.

Umm I thought the first Fifth Element sucked so they had to remaster that one.

[aimforsilence]

If you don't all already know, blu-ray.com has reviewed the set. Sad to hear that fellowship supposedly get screwed by a shitty video transfer. Though on second thought i guess you have to half expect that, as they are probably hard at work at transferring the Extended versions to be released along side The Hobbit in theaters.. either way, I am still getting suckered into buying it, as they are 3 (or in my mind 1) of my favorite films.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Looks like the MPEG-2-version has similar colors to the DVD-version, which would be more pale.
However it's of course much more detailed, I guess the MPEG-2-version would be from an HDTV-recording?...

Anyway, the Blu-ray-version looks a little softer, as the MPEG-2-version looks sharper compared to Blu-ray.
But as said before, it shows a little more of the flaws because of that too.
However, the Blu-ray-version has warmer and more natural colors.
I think the Blu-ray is the way to go between the 3 options shown.
Cause first of all it has the colors correct and it doesn't differ thát much in detail.
Perhaps the slightly softer image might even do good to the style of the films.
Still very detailed though.
.

Thats what i am saying also. I bet this was the intended look by Peter Jackson and the crazy nitpicky videophiles will not see that they will never be happy because they expected a 5/5 PQ.

Also he wouldn't have approved this. And this was actually the 4th transfer they did for him and he approved this one.