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

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

No one is saying that folks can't sit wherever they like. Just like you can sit in any seat in the theater you choose.

......

No, some may just have demeaning signatures that tell others their home theater isn't a home theater unless they are at a distance of 1.5.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Do you feel the Tom Bombadil part from the book should have been included in the film? I dont know exactly how they would incorporate that into the film in a smooth way, but I miss that part from the book as far as the film goes. This was one of my favorite parts from the book.

It was correct to leave Bombadil out of the movies. In the book, however, his role was crucial, because he represented the only powerful being in the story that had no interest in using his power to control or dominate others (thus the Ring had no effect on him).

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Most specifically, it's *viewing angle* that matters, not actually "how big" the screen literally is. Sitting close to a small screen can reveal just as much as sitting far from a very large screen.

That's why the screen-width-distance ratio is really helpful. Watching from 1.5 screen-widths away from a 16x9 screen gives an approximate 30-degree viewing angle. That general rule of thumb can apply to any screen or HDTV where someone is willing/able to try to replicate a cinema-experience.

Good point, and agreed. Due to limitations in my HT, the closest I can get without sacrificing my sound is 1.75-1.8 view distance which is where I am at. This is the absolute furthest I would want to be though, and if I did not have the limitations I do, I would definitely get into the 1.5 range. Even at the 1.75-1.8 range though issues such as DNR, EE, etc......become a problem to my eyes.

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

It was correct to leave Bombadil out of the movies. In the book, however, his role was crucial, because he represented the only powerful being in the story that had no interest in using his power to control or dominate others (thus the Ring had no effect on him).

That is a good point and I suppose you are right. I just missed his character more than anything, but as you suggest, it probably would have been out of place in the movie.

Originally Posted by Monkey

No, some may just have demeaning signatures that tell others their home theater isn't a home theater unless they are at a distance of 1.5.

I dont see anything demeaning about his signature..........its the truth if your goal is the director intended 30 degree viewing angle which should be the goal, or atleast as close as you can for anyone with a home theater who is trying to get as close to the director intended vision. The fact that you feel threatened by it is your problem in all due respect.

[micks_address]

agree with everything you say here...

Originally Posted by dj_intrepid

I just watched the blu-ray copies of the Lord of the Rings Theatrical Editions this weekend and I must say, they all look and sound way better than the DVD's. So good in fact that I could never watch the DVD's again. The so called instances of DNR that these reviewers are pointing out are a product of the post production effects, not the transfers. They've been there all along, on the past transfers on DVD, and at the cinemas, it's just that it's more obvious seeing it in high def. Yes, Fellowship looks the worst of the three films, but it's still a much better presentation than any of the DVD's. I would liken the weaknesses of the image to the first Harry Potter film. It was just tinkered with in post production too much. Two Towers and Return of the King look phenomenal by comparison, precisely because they toned down the tinkering to allow more of the natural look to show through, providing more depth, detail, color, and dimensionality than I've ever seen from them.

Do yourself a favor, a least rent them on blu-ray before you unjustly crucify them.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I dont see anything demeaning about his signature..........its the truth if your goal is the director intended 30 degree viewing angle which should be the goal, or atleast as close as you can for anyone with a home theater who is trying to get as close to the director intended vision. The fact that you feel threatened by it is your problem in all due respect.

Here you go with the whole "threatened" thing again.

I seriously doubt anyone is "threatened" by someone with a bigger TV, bigger car, bigger lawnmower, etc.

"Annoyed" might be the better word, when that someone with a bigger TV, bigger car, bigger lawnmower, etc., keeps insisting on discussing their bigger TV, bigger car, bigger lawnmower, etc.

In all seriousness, do you mean something else? The word "threatened", considering all of its meanings, really has no application here.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I dont see anything demeaning about his signature..........its the truth if your goal is the director intended 30 degree viewing angle which should be the goal, or atleast as close as you can for anyone with a home theater who is trying to get as close to the director intended vision. The fact that you feel threatened by it is your problem in all due respect.

It isn't about being threatened as I'm not threatened (really not sure where you get that from.. then again this is an internet forum :0 ) . I simple don't agree with the signature. It is demeaning to tell others their home theaters aren't home theaters but merely tv's if they don't meet that requirement. Of course it his perogative to put whatever he wants in his signature and I'm more than free to comment on it and have a little fun with it

edit:
"Due to limitations in my HT, the closest I can get without sacrificing my sound is 1.75-1.8 view distance which is where I am at. "

If I agree with his sig I'd have to tell you, you in fact don't have a HT (Home Theater, correct me if I'm wrong with the HT) but merely just a tv.

[Chordata]

I have sigs turned off -- what exactly does his say?

I'm sure it's in jest, because he seems pretty clear and well-reasoned in his posts.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

Here you go with the whole "threatened" thing again.

I seriously doubt anyone is "threatened" by someone with a bigger TV, bigger car, bigger lawnmower, etc.

"Annoyed" might be the better word, when that someone with a bigger TV, bigger car, bigger lawnmower, etc., keeps insisting on discussing their bigger TV, bigger car, bigger lawnmower, etc.

In all seriousness, do you mean something else? The word "threatened", considering all of its meanings, really has no application here.

When such defensive, immature responses are given, I do perceive this as that individual feeling threatened. You can call it what you want, but to me it is threatened.

You obviously still feel threatened as well which I dont understand. Nobody is better than ANYBODY else here and we are just having a discussion.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Finished RoTK yesterday

Ooh, didn't know you were watching the entire broadcasts.

[jonmoz]

O.V.N. i am with you on the fact this release is not as bad as some say,and i seem to be on my own as i have a large screen.

I also do not agree with the opinion of some,that certain people and their set-ups can't contribute to the debate,

Everyone has there opinion and while we may not agree,we have to respect it.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

I also do not agree with the opinion of some,that certain people and their set-ups can't contribute to the debate,

I dont see anyone saying that, but rather it would be VERY helpful to list some crucial details about ones setup/view distance so the contribution holds MUCH more weight.

Originally Posted by Monkey

edit:
"Due to limitations in my HT, the closest I can get without sacrificing my sound is 1.75-1.8 view distance which is where I am at. "

If I agree with his sig I'd have to tell you, you in fact don't have a HT (Home Theater, correct me if I'm wrong with the HT) but merely just a tv.

And??? Tech, he is right and personally I dont feel threatened by that because it is just the truth.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I have sigs turned off -- what exactly does his say?

I'm sure it's in jest, because he seems pretty clear and well-reasoned in his posts.

"If it's not 1.5 screen widths, it's not "Home Theater" -it's TV."

I'm just having light hearted fun with it Still I don't agree with any rules as we all have different physical abilities and preferences for seating distances. Plus some buy home theater equipment but don't set them ideally due to the confines of their home theater rooms. I wouldn't go to a friends house who invested money and pride into their system to tell them they merely have a tv.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Goldengirl

ripping open the plastic film on DVDs.

So if you want the "sword" edition of the LOTR BR, but you don't already have a letter opener...

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Oh yeah, but I try to look at the books and the movies as two different (but related) things. If I tried to judge them comparatively, the book would win out every time.

Watching them this weekend, it was hard to take, in so many places. Frequently, I would think "Gandalf wouldn't say that", "Legolas wouldn't say that", "Galadriel wasn't like that". It's one thing to leave stuff out like Bombadil because of story flow and time considerations, but the changes to the story line were annoying in many places.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

And??? Tech, he is right and personally I dont feel threatened by that because it is just the truth.

I'm glad you don't feel threatened. I don't recall anybody claiming you were or should be

Well we'll just have to disagree, though you need to stop using "HT" if you really believe it is the truth. Just say I watch my blu's in my super duper "TV" setup

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I'm glad you don't feel threatened. I don't recall anybody claiming you were or should be

Well we'll just have to disagree, though you need to stop using "HT" if you really believe it is the truth. Just say I watch my blu's in my super duper "TV" setup

lol.........fair enough Super duper TV setup sounds pretty cool as well That will probably get more laughs when describing my setup to someone as well

[jonmoz]

Todd i agree with a lot of things you say,it's just the way some people have put their points across,will seem a little condescending to some.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Monkey

"If it's not 1.5 screen widths, it's not "Home Theater" -it's TV."

I'm just having light hearted fun with it Still I don't agree with any rules as we all have different physical abilities and preferences for seating distances. Plus some buy home theater equipment but don't set them ideally due to the confines of their home theater rooms. I wouldn't go to a friends house who invested money and pride into their system to tell them they merely have a tv.

Obviously we can all do what we want and the reality is that most cant get the exact director intended vision type setup due to having to be practical with whatever room/setup we have. Having said that, if your goal is director intended vision, then the "rules", and accomplishing them, or as close as is realistically practical becomes a necessity.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

When such defensive, immature responses are given, I do perceive this as that individual feeling threatened. You can call it what you want, but to me it is threatened.

You obviously still feel threatened as well which I dont understand. Nobody is better than ANYBODY else here and we are just having a discussion.

LOL. We covered this dude. I am not "threatened." The word honestly has no application here.

And if we're talking about me, I have an extremely high opinion of myself. LOL

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Todd i agree with a lot of things you say,it's just the way some people have put their points across,will seem a little condescending to some.

I understand and appreciate what you are saying. If I have come across that way, then I apologize as that is not my goal. David seems to be a bit more elegant with words than me (I mean that as a compliment) and just read his posts if mine are perceived as condescending which again I am not doing intentionally.

[Q?]

So this isn't threatning?