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

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Is that Gollum without makeup?

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

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

Awesome post Ken. Thanks for all your effort and thoughts on these films.
There are only a handful of mainstream reviewers I truly enjoy/respect not only for what they have to say, but how they say it and how they present themselves and the material........you are one of them. Keep up the good work and thanks again

[TrenchRun]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Only Joking TrenchRun,but with the three movies having heavy postproduction done on them to achive their fairytale look, it's a miracle they could find a 100 hours work to do,i think someone has been making up their own timesheets at Warner.

And to be fair if Warner were making this up to counter poor reviews and forum unease,you would think they would come up with a longer time than a 100 hours.

exactly!

it's fairly standard these days to re-master for HD release. ideally you go back to the original film...scan it at resolution you couldn't do 5 year ago, maximize quality right through the pipeline (which may not have been necessary for SD release) but in this case it seems they used the same source as the sddvds and overproduced the blurays..too much dnr, too much edge enhancement. I'm of the opinion that if you can spot it...it's too much. seen that gladiator bluray?? the worst edge enhancement i've seen on a major release. it's very distracting once you see it. and thats supposed to be the super-awesome sapphire edition or some damn thing.

back to these blurays: if the official word is that "focus groups" preferred it...well..what can i say? that says it all. money talks.

at the very least they should tell us when the big proper sets will come out...that way we can decide for ourselves if we want to wait or buy..and wont feel cheated.

I haven't given these discs fair viewing..but just the fact that every credible reviewer has pretty harsh words about it (these films should be reference quality blurays) AND the fact that there's no extended edition on the horizon is really annoying me and many other LOTR fans. Peter Jackson said that he had a ton of extra material he's holding on to for a future release (this said years ago).

It's a money grab pure and simple. Sadly it will work...they KNOW that the "average viewer" doesn't know squat about HD...they'll eat it up, while the real fans and HD aficionados get the short end. you tell them hey we've removed all that nasty grain! they say..oh yeah that's much better...but these are probably the same people who preferred colorized B&Ws.

this is lord of the friggin rings! 3 of the biggest films of the last 20 years, they really should be aiming higher no?

especially after the SD-DVDS...those must be the best sets ever produced.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The audio was very great again, but didn't manage unseat The Incredible Hulk as my favorite audio track in my collection.

This is the thing I am most curious about with these films is how the audio has stood the test of time in relation to the best tracks today. I have not watched/listened to these in a few years in anticipation of the EEs in HD (blu ray has spoiled the hell out of me and I watch VERY few SD-DVDs in the HT anymore) and am curious how these audio tracks compete with titles such as Hellboy 2, Cloverfield, The Incredible Hulk (probably my favorite audio track as well), etc..........Return of the King last time I watched was still right at the top as far as my favorite audio tracks..........how close in your opinion does RotK come to TIH as far as your favorite audio track?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Is that Gollum without makeup?

No, this is...

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

No, this is...

Looks like that scene from the prologue when Gollum first crawls into his cave in the Misty Mountains. Dramatic!

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Well of course I WANT to watch them again, as I love the first one, the second is in my top 15 movies, and the 3rd is my favorite movie....but it just takes so darn long to watch them and I've seen them each twice in a week


I'm ready for some short movies I tells ya! Short!

Just think of the burnout you'll have if you get the EEs on Blu in a few years.

[Todd Smith]

Interesting poll you guys might want to participate in over on AVS in case you missed it........best to get as many opinions/votes as possible.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1241371

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I'm ready for some short movies I tells ya! Short!

Time for some 3 Stooges shorts.

Originally Posted by Adam.C

or animated flicks, or romantic comedies

How about the animated LOTR? It's animated and it just came out on Blu.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Interesting poll you guys might want to participate in over on AVS in case you missed it........best to get as many opinions/votes as possible.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1241371

Those results are much better than I expected for that site.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Thank you very much, Peter.

I'd mistakenly assumed that the Red Ants had gone away, at least from this forum. Shows what I know. Apparently they are about as persistent as a herpes infection.

I decided to read through this thread while I wait for my set to arrive. This is the best description I have seen in my almost three years posting here. I am in the middle of dinner and actually had to give myself the Heimlich maneuver after reading it.

Hope you don't mind if I borrow it.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Those results are much better than I expected for that site.

Nothing surprising right now IMO, but curious to see where it ends up after this week.

[Gamma_Winstead]

RotK looks great. Fellowship is ok. I just watched the Mines of Moria sequence.

I'll be watching the trilogy in whole on saturday.

[ungood]

i thought he was gollum?

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Interesting poll you guys might want to participate in over on AVS in case you missed it........best to get as many opinions/votes as possible.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1241371

excellent source. Good find.

[Sith]

I am so sick of Warner and there bull sh*t, Fellowship isn't even 10 years old and made them over a billion dollars alone on the first movie, how can it look so crappy.

I'm watching Snow White right now which is over 70 years old and looks 10 times better, and even a movie like Fight Club that didn't make anywhere near the kind of coin that FOTR did looks twice as good.

There just getting ready to bend us over again when they finally make it look
the way it should.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

This is the thing I am most curious about with these films is how the audio has stood the test of time in relation to the best tracks today. I have not watched/listened to these in a few years in anticipation of the EEs in HD (blu ray has spoiled the hell out of me and I watch VERY few SD-DVDs in the HT anymore) and am curious how these audio tracks compete with titles such as Hellboy 2, Cloverfield, The Incredible Hulk (probably my favorite audio track as well), etc..........Return of the King last time I watched was still right at the top as far as my favorite audio tracks..........how close in your opinion does RotK come to TIH as far as your favorite audio track?

Its not very close to it actually.

It is good enough to be in my Top 10 for audio in my collection, but I wouldn't put it in my Top 5 favorites.

Which would be:

The Incredible Hulk
Terminator Salvation (It's a close one between these two, as both tracks are insane)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
The Dark Knight
The Fast and the Furious

The 5th may rotate occasionally, but the Top 4 don't change.



But that doesn't mean the audio isn't a 5/5 (because it is), as a good bit of the movies in my collection are demo worthy for audio so its tough to make it into that Top 5.

[Riff Magnum]

Added this to my online collection. Went from 92 blurays to 93. That kinda sucks seeing as it's really three movies. Are all trilogy/collections counted like this?

[un4gvn94538]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Added this to my online collection. Went from 92 blurays to 93. That kinda sucks seeing as it's really three movies. Are all trilogy/collections counted like this?

yes

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Sith

I am so sick of Warner and there bull sh*t, Fellowship isn't even 10 years old and made them over a billion dollars alone on the first movie, how can it look so crappy.

I'm watching Snow White right now which is over 70 years old and looks 10 times better, and even a movie like Fight Club that didn't make anywhere near the kind of coin that FOTR did looks twice as good.

There just getting ready to bend us over again when they finally make it look
the way it should.

it wasn't bad compared to the original DVD, Way bigger upgrade homie.