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

[sharkcohen]

I've watched Fellowship. I don't have a large screen, but I view a pro calibrated 52" LCD with a 36 degree viewing angle in a controlled light environment. The picture quality of the movie is inconsistent throughout, with a small number of surprisingly soft images to many with incredible detail. It seems to me to reflect an inconsistent source. However, I think what is offered on the Blu-ray consists of much more good than bad, and I would rate it overall as a 3.5/5. I believe that to be a fair and not unworthy score. This release is absolutely not Gangs, Dark City, Trek VI, or Gladiator. I'm looking forward to watching the other 2 films.

The sound is just awesome.

I think this set is a no-brainer purchase for the fans.

Samsung 52B750 52" 1080p LCD, 36 degree viewing angle
Onkyo 605
Yamaha NS-SP1600 5.1 speakers
PS3
video and audio calibrated by Jeff Meier, http://www.accucalhd.com/

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

You must of seen the blu-ray cartoon version of Lord of the Rings because there is not individual releases of the 3 movies on blu-ray.

lol your weird considering i just bought a single blu-ray movie called return of the king and next week going for the other two

[Mr. Cinema]

I bought the set the other day. Haven't watched it yet, but I like the films and I like BD, so I wanted them. I don't care much, at all, for screenshots, especially from those who appear to enjoy looking for flaws more than watching actual movies. I like watching movies in motion, not freeze frame.

Having said that, you can tell this looks like a quick cash-in type of presentation. Not strictly the video presentation, but the overall set. For a franchise that is as huge as this one, you'd expect to see new features, and WB's In-Movie Experience, among other interactive features. I'm sure we'll get all of that in a future version.

I'm sure they know these are going to sell no matter what, so they gave us a basic set for now. Maybe the Extended set will have all the bells and whistles that BD offers.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by Fighter

It really cracks me up all of the negative comments on the PQ even before anyone had a copy to view it.

Yes, the PQ could always be a little better, but there's nothing to complain about. It looks great....and sounds even better!

the picture quality of lotr looks awesome especially "return of the king" which makes other blu-ray look stupid

[Batman1980]

Just finished watching Return of the King, I guess it could be a little better but I wasn't disappointed at all and look forward to watching these again soon with family. 3/5 for FoTR, 3.5/5 for TTT and 4/5 for RoTK.

[BigT]

Just a few thoughts (facts if you will) to those that can't understand why there is such a huge degree of opinions on the transfer. For one, we don't know exactly which master they used for the BD release. David B. discussion with another poster here on the production porcess should be REQUIRED reading for anyone who wants to understand what takes place and what could go wrong. Secondly is production, NOT ALL the blu-rays from a certain release will come from the same production facility. Hence different product even though it looks similiar. When it comes to software, be it movies, programs or products of that nature, it requires a copying process that's never 100% guaranteed. Thirdly, the qulaity controll teams in all the different places where the product is being produced don't have all the same controls/equipment in place. Therefore again same product but slightly different end results. Lastly, the one factor that was mentioned here very often, the viewing (set-up) environment of the individual consumer and their subjective nature. Put all this together and you get the opnions being expressed here today. The only thing that most agree thought is that this release, "LOTR" should have been a top (not just a decent) transfer all the way around. It was a flagship blu-ray release that could have brought many new fans into the blu-ray medium. But because the company didn't put the required effort (money/time/tight controls) over their release, you get just an ok product. You can forgive some lesser transfers (movies) for being "lazy" but LOTR should have blown everything out of water with one of the "best" to date. No excuses why they could not.

[Batman1980]

Just want to point out something I never noticed before for some reason. Theoden King is probably the best speech maker in the movies, I know he gets me fired up every time he gives one.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by john_1958

lol your weird considering i just bought a single blu-ray movie called return of the king and next week going for the other two

From who, a friend?

You didn't buy it from Amazon, WB, or a B&M.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

From who, a friend?

You didn't buy it from Amazon, WB, or a B&M.

There are individual releases in Europe.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by BigT

Just a few thoughts (facts if you will) to those that can't understand why there is such a huge degree of opinions on the transfer. For one, we don't know exactly which master they used for the BD release. David B. discussion with another poster here on the production porcess should be REQUIRED reading for anyone who wants to understand what takes place and what could go wrong. Secondly is production, NOT ALL the blu-rays from a certain release will come from the same production facility. Hence different product even though it looks similiar. When it comes to software, be it movies, programs or products of that nature, it requires a copying process that's never 100% guaranteed. Thirdly, the qulaity controll teams in all the different places where the product is being produced don't have all the same controls/equipment in place. Therefore again same product but slightly different end results. Lastly, the one factor that was mentioned here very often, the viewing (set-up) environment of the individual consumer and their subjective nature. Put all this together and you get the opnions being expressed here today. The only thing that most agree thought is that this release, "LOTR" should have been a top (not just a decent) transfer all the way around. It was a flagship blu-ray release that could have brought many new fans into the blu-ray medium. But because the company didn't put the required effort (money/time/tight controls) over their release, you get just an ok product. You can forgive some lesser transfers (movies) for being "lazy" but LOTR should have blown everything out of water with one of the "best" to date. No excuses why they could not.

Unless you are privy to information the rest of us are not, it is impossible for you to make disparaging remarks about the lack of required effort.

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Just want to point out something I never noticed before for some reason. Theoden King is probably the best speech maker in the movies, I know he gets me fired up every time he gives one.

I agree, and the books are full of them as well.....

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

From who, a friend?

You didn't buy it from Amazon, WB, or a B&M.

local store

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

And thank you, Ken, for being here and commenting on our comments! As you say, it's all subjective, but I've never before encountered such hugely varying opinions of a film's PQ for any other title. Any thoughts on why? Certainly one's equipment and viewing environment come into play, but I think with these films--arguably the most high-profile and eagerly anticipated films to appear on Blu so far--some people's expectations may have been set so high that anything less than perfection would be a profound disappointment? (I myself had no complaints whatsoever with FOTR, and can't understand how anyone would call it "horrible"--there are certainly far worse-looking BDs out there.)

No problem. The real reason for all the confusion is that it's unclear how much of the issues trace back to the source and how much to Warner's transfer. We can try to assign numbers -- 90/10, 80/20, 70/30 -- but the unfortunate truth is that no one knows for sure (at least not anyone who has any clearcut evidence), and there's very few ways to confirm the facts and theories being bandied about. As such, a viewer's subjective opinion is even more subjective.

One of the things I enjoy about Criterion releases is that the studio is very, very transparent about the efforts and techniques they use when remastering or reissuing a title. Had Warner included a featurette or a printed insert about the effort that went into the transfers, or had enough foresight to see the wide array of opinions on the horizon, there would be much less confusion. That's not blaming Warner at all, or accusing them of some sort of negligence, but in an ideal world the facts would be more concrete and we wouldn't have to figure these things out on a message board

That being said, there are other issues at play. One's love of the film can induce defensive posturing, sensitivity to each issue is a major contributing factor, and post-review expectations left some thinking the transfer was much worse than it is. Perhaps I've done a poor job of conveying my opinions, or perhaps the fury surrounding the DNR debate has distracted people from other problems, but my low score came because I had so many issues with the transfer. Each issue is minor -- yes, even the DNR -- but each issue stacked atop another, slowly pushing my personal score down. So if you look at any one point, the reaction is, "what's the problem?" But when you add them all together, it starts to make more sense.

Finally, Jackson's involvement in the Blu-ray release and his rather ambiguous praise of it leaves a lot to be desired. But can you blame him? A filmmaker can approve and praise a transfer all he or she wants -- that doesn't mean they're actually pleased with the results (even if they know it's because they didn't have the resources or technology available to them at the time to make the film look exactly like they wanted it to). At the end of the day, sales line filmmaker pockets too, and they have a vested interest in promoting the quality of a release. Not saying Jackson is doing any such thing, but I personally take any vague comment from any filmmaker with a grain of salt. I love the man, don't get me wrong, but let's not forget this is the same savvy businessman who made New Line billions with a supposedly unfilmable fantasy epic

Ultimately, I still feel I was able to separate Jackson's intentions and the filmic softness of 'FotR' (a softness I was well acquainted with during its theatrical release) from the oddities that pop up in Warner's transfer. But that doesn't mean I'm right. If nothing else, I hope my review accurately reflects the appearance of the transfer. My goal was to evaluate it purely on its faithfulness to the source and, based on the evidence before me, I still think I did just that. Did I react to its issues more harshly than some? Obviously. Is that such a bad thing? I don't think so. Everyone pretty much agrees that there are at least some issues attributable to Warner's encode -- so it all comes down to how violently an individual viewer reacts to those issues. That being said, I happily changed my entire 'DaVinci Code' review after talking with a Sony source about a very similar issue, so I'm not above being wrong and correcting a review. However, I haven't had any such luck digging up any such source or concrete insider information in this case.

Ah well. The slew of positive and negative reviews are, in my mind, a very good thing. If nothing else, it's inspiring people to rent the discs and judge for themselves. Again, they look better than the DVDs, and better than anything else we'll see of 'LotR' for a few years. As many gripes as I have with 'FotR,' I'm still happy to have it on Blu-ray, especially when 50-60% of its scenes admittedly look quite good

[sharkcohen]

Originally Posted by BigT

Secondly is production, NOT ALL the blu-rays from a certain release will come from the same production facility. Hence different product even though it looks similiar. When it comes to software, be it movies, programs or products of that nature, it requires a copying process that's never 100% guaranteed. Thirdly, the qulaity controll teams in all the different places where the product is being produced don't have all the same controls/equipment in place. Therefore again same product but slightly different end results.

Although these 2 points could cause certain issues, I don't see them causing a variability in image quality.

[ShockWave]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

From who, a friend?

You didn't buy it from Amazon, WB, or a B&M.

He must of bought the DVD version. Or is just kidding around.

[Swearengen]

Originally Posted by Fighter

It really cracks me up all of the negative comments on the PQ even before anyone had a copy to view it.

Yes, the PQ could always be a little better, but there's nothing to complain about. It looks great....and sounds even better!

Some of us actually commented on it, having seen the PQ of Fellowship and on a large screen. And absolutely there is something to complain about. Why would this site, Highdefdigest and Hometheaterforum otherwise be unanimous in their critic of the PQ of the first movie?

When the movie looks better in a compressed HDTV showing, then probably something could be done to make it look better on blu-ray. If it looks as good as it can, well then the transfer must be mediocre and thats that. Personally I will survive.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Russell_L

And thank you, Ken, for being here and commenting on our comments! As you say, it's all subjective, but I've never before encountered such hugely varying opinions of a film's PQ for any other title. Any thoughts on why? Certainly one's equipment and viewing environment come into play, but I think with these films--arguably the most high-profile and eagerly anticipated films to appear on Blu so far--some people's expectations may have been set so high that anything less than perfection would be a profound disappointment? (I myself had no complaints whatsoever with FOTR, and can't understand how anyone would call it "horrible"--there are certainly far worse-looking BDs out there.)

I agree with this.
And also over at highdefdigest board you get your head ripped of trying to tell them it is not as bad as some people say. it actually looks really good. And that project-blu guy can't take that some has different opinion then his review. I mean what kind of a board is that, you can't even have a different opinion then the reviewer over there. I am done with that board. It has turned into avs over there

This board is way more open to different opinions. You are a great reviewer Ken that also can see that people can have more opinions

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I think these types of questions could account for the variability we are seeing here. Certainly anyone expecting the clarity of something like No Country for Old Men was going to be disappointed with LOTR PQ, which involves heavy processing to accommodate CGI elements during the first part of the decade. One should weigh in that issue in scoring.

Agreed, good sir! I hope the clarifications I recently added into my video review of 'FotR' helped make that point more clear. I really tried to separate the film's inherent softness and processing from what I believe to be additional processing for this Blu-ray release. However, if I was only complaining about the DNR that is present, and even if I attributed 100% of it to Warner's mastering efforts, I would have given 'FotR' a 3.5-4.0. And that's if I attributed all of the DNR to Warner's recent work on the title (which clearly isn't the case). But I had too many other issues, minor as each individual problem may be, to stop there. Hope that helps clarify even further! Thanks.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Yeah, my favourite bit was when the naysayers were calling me a troll for claiming that it really wasn't that bad. I'm pleased that they've disappeared for now.

Yeah they are insane. But nothing beats the insane naysayers at highdefdigest

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by ShockWave

He must of bought the DVD version. Or is just kidding around.

no i didn't but dvd version and i'm not joking around its actual blu-ray movie