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

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Grand Bob, I'm interested in your reaction to the link to the essay a few posts back. Did you read it?

That was an interesting article with plenty of insight, example:

Consider the hobbits’ first glimpses of Bree and The Prancing Pony. In the book, it is a clear, starry night, and Merry’s family at least is familiar with the town and its inn. Unsophisticated Sam is nervous about the height of the buildings, but Frodo reassures him that the inn comes highly recommended. From the outside, the inn “looked a pleasant house,” and there are lights shining through the windows. They can hear singing inside, and they get a friendly welcome from the innkeeper and the hobbits who work for him. The first hint of anything sinister is Frodo’s glimpse of Aragorn smoking quietly in a corner with his hood concealing his face (Fellowship 168) . Aragorn’s revelations and the later attack by the Black Riders are all the more frightening for happening in such a seemingly safe and comfortable place; this contrast is important to Frodo’s decision to accept Aragorn’s guidance. In Jackson’s movie, however, Bree is threatening from the start. It is pouring rain when the travelers reach town; tall Men jostle them in the streets and a cart nearly runs them down. There is harsh laughter in the bar, and an intimidatingly tall reception desk. The customers are unpleasantly dirty, and sloppy drinkers to boot. And when the Ring slips onto Frodo’s finger, we get the “Ring effect” of blue light and rushing wind, along with Sauron’s searching Eye (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, scene 12) . In the book the Ring has absolutely no effect in this scene but to make Frodo disappear from sight (Fellowship 172-3) ."

[owa]

Looks like it might be selling pretty well. The big display they had for it at BB only had 4 copies left today so hopefully that's a good sign.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by radagast
Can we all agree that we are so THANKFUL that Warner didn't try to cram LOTR onto hd-dvds? Do I hear an amen?

And thank Jabala they didn't do flipper hd-dvds.. instead of just complaining about botched PQ on all three discs we'd have half the forum complaining that they can't get through an entire movie without multiple freezes, skipping, audio sync issues. 200 pages of LotR boiling techniques :0 (Of course the AVS crowd would then praise the transfers)

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Oh man, when someone has a negative agenda against a film, he or she will find every negative crumb and string them together...

Anyway, the nitpicking in the article is almost ridiculous.

What bothered me more than any of these technical details where Jackson strayed from the books was the way Jackson directed the actors. To Tolkien, the genuine emotions and relationships between characters, often going back generations, was as big a part of the story as the plot.

I do think character relationships and emotions are very hard to translate from book to film, but some directors have the ability to get performances from their actors that come much closer than Jackson did (I think we'll see that Del Toro will be more successful than Jackson). As much as I love the technical merits of Jackson's LotR, he often didn't get Tolkien's feel when it came to how the characters related. Boromir seemed right because that was a bad relationship from the start but for the others the comaraderie didn't seem genuine. Showing the hobbits jumping in a bed together at the end just didn't cut it. The worst example was Gimli who only supplied comic relief. It was like Jackson telling short people jokes through the whole movie and it detracted from other aspects of the film. So I have a love/hate relationship with these movies.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Oh man, when someone has a negative agenda against a film, he or she will find every negative crumb and string them together...

I personally disagree with almost every point in the article, and I really think that Tolkien would have (if a bit grudgingly) approved of the films. Most of critics quoted in the article don't realize how difficult it is to translate a literary work to film, let alone a masterpiece like LOTR. Are the films as close to the books as possible? probably not, and Peter Jackson may be the first to say so. As someone who read the books, though, I really believe he took the best of it and translated it successfully. I certainly appreciated it far more than a mere "action spectacle."

Part of the reason these "Tolkien"-ists are upset with the film is that it made the material more accessible to a larger crowd, not one that is locked up in hushed reading rooms or literary forums. [/I]

Anyway, the nitpicking in the article is almost ridiculous.

If you think the article is nitpicking, then you don't get it. The feel of what is going on is drastically different in many places in the film. The idea that moviemakers have to dumb down a story to make it more appealing to the masses is insulting. There are many good things in the books that never made it to the movie and it would NOT have been hard to put them in. The list is rather large. Merry and Pippin's reasons for being with Frodo and Sam. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king are two examples. Translating a literary work to film doesn't require changing the personalities of the characters. Denethor and Faramir for instance. Gimli for another. Subtle changes in the way people say things can convey very different meanings. That is the whole reason why we have dilplomats. So by changing the wording of dialogue, Jackson also changed the feel of the scene, in some cases.

Having a large budget for special effects, costumes, scenery, props, etc. is no substitute for a good script. When they followed the books, it was good, when they didn't, it was either cheesy Hollywood film making or (as in the case with the over-the-top battle scenes) an extended commercial for the movie tie-in video games.

The article's example of how Hitchcock would have built suspense in the movie as well as the book did, was spot on.

Are they good movies? Yes. Are they good adaptations of the books? No. The definitive version of LoTR has yet to be made.

I agree with Gremal. I have a love-hate relationship with these movies. And re-reading the books, like I am now, is only reinforcing my opinion.

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

Wow. I must type too slow lol.

Well, looking at your receiver and seeing that your solutions do not work I guess you have two options:
1. Buy a new AV Receiver with multiple HDMI.
2. For now, plug your PS3 into your AV Receiver with Optical cable. Set your PS3 for sending audio signals through Bitstream.

EDIT: 3. Plug your PS3 into your receiver with HDMI. Buy the component cables for the PS3(must be the ones that Sony make for the PS3, regular Component won't work) and plug them into your TV. You should then be able to receive 1080p and lossless audio.

You cannot receive a full HD 1080p signal from component of any kind.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Yeah, I wonder what the BD's woud have looked like having to conform to "the lowest common denominator".

So that's what LCD means.

[lDlisturb3d]

im going to get the Aragon sword and Gandolf staff in a few months. I would get legolas's little itty bitty swords but i don't think it would look right with the other collection. Even tho he's my favorite character i wont be supporting those letter openers lol. I wish i could find his bow and arrows some where

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by deeman54

I wish i could find his bow and arrows some where

http://www.bowstick.com/storefront/i...roducts_id=258

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by radagast

Can we all agree that we are so THANKFUL that Warner didn't try to cram LOTR onto hd-dvds? Do I hear an amen?

yes this is true,we should also mentioned we are enjoying Lord of the Rings in an unbelievable DTSHD master audio which cannot get day light on the HDDVD.

Thanks Warner Bros and i am just waiting my copy on BD.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

Oh, and if they have cable, they can watch it in HD too. Just need to watch the schedule.

But they dont do OAR.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

But they dont do OAR.

But they do have those cool adverts all over the bottom of the screen.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by radagast

That's not the way Denthor was portrayed in the books. He was a noble man whose mind was overthrown by looking into the palantir and seeing only what Sauron wanted him to see. He despaired of being able to stop Sauron's forces and on top of that lost his oldest son.

Exactly. Denethor is the one part I hate the most on all 3 movies. It's not a huge thing but I really did not like how they made him, so very far from what he is in the books. Yes he is snobish a bit in his character in the books but he's never an @ss. In the movie they made him look like a _ _ _ hole

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by radagast

That's not the way Denthor was portrayed in the books. He was a noble man whose mind was overthrown by looking into the palantir and seeing only what Sauron wanted him to see. He despaired of being able to stop Sauron's forces and on top of that lost his oldest son.

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Denethor had his reasons, but he's still a dick.

I think the biggest stick Denethor had up his bum, is that he'd looked into the Palantir, and he already knew that no matter how the war turned out, he and his family would be among the things swept away with the passing of an age: the days of the Stewards were finished, and the-world-as he-knew-it was over. How he reacted to that information was not very noble. Just because you are not going to be a part of the future, does not justify an attitude of "let the world burn, what do I care? There's nothing left in it for me." I think he went quite a bit farther than just not being very gracious about accepting his own mortality.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Exactly. Denethor is the one part I hate the most on all 3 movies. It's not a huge thing but I really did not like how they made him, so very far from what he is in the books. Yes he is snobish a bit in his character in the books but he's never an @ss. In the movie they made him look like a _ _ _ hole

Yeah I didn't like it either, Denethor was a noble man, reflected by his noble sons, who were far better portrayed in the films than he was.

[Witch King of Angmar]

Boromir is one of my fav. characters from LOTR. Sucks

[Show spoiler]he had to die

.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Monkey

And thank Jabala they didn't do flipper hd-dvds.. instead of just complaining about botched PQ on all three discs we'd have half the forum complaining that they can't get through an entire movie without multiple freezes, skipping, audio sync issues. 200 pages of LotR boiling techniques :0 (Of course the AVS crowd would then praise the transfers)

Just because AVS doesn't have blu-ray in it's url doesn't mean it didn't support blu-ray.
Believe me, being a blu-ray supporter on that forum, I fought many e-battles in many threads defending blu-ray as the preferred HD media. At no time did I feel that the mods at AVS favored HD-DVD over blu-ray. A thread was usually shutdown due to it getting off topic and way to much FUD on both sides. People like Lee Stewart and rdjam were pushed almost to non-existance once HD DVD died but they popup from time to time to push the new ememy of blu-ray, streaming.

[Becko]

Originally Posted by radagast

Best buy can be pretty nutty at times. The regular LOTR blu-ray is now $84.99, but the special "letter-opener sword" edition is $74.99. So they are in essence "paying" people $10 to take the special edition.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstempl...=Movies&ks=960

What's the difference between those 2 ? which one has better packing ? i guess the cheapest way to get the movies is at wal mart for $63.96

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

Just because AVS doesn't have blu-ray in it's url doesn't mean it didn't support blu-ray.
Believe me, being a blu-ray supporter on that forum, I fought many e-battles in many threads defending blu-ray as the preferred HD media. At no time did I feel that the mods at AVS favored HD-DVD over blu-ray. A thread was usually shutdown due to it getting off topic and way to much FUD on both sides. People like Lee Stewart and rdjam were pushed almost to non-existance once HD DVD died but they popup from time to time to push the new ememy of blu-ray, streaming.

Things were nowhere near as neutral as you remember. I remember what passed as an "Insiders Forum" over their being a circus, with Amir as the ring leader.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

Just because AVS doesn't have blu-ray in it's url doesn't mean it didn't support blu-ray.
Believe me, being a blu-ray supporter on that forum, I fought many e-battles in many threads defending blu-ray as the preferred HD media. At no time did I feel that the mods at AVS favored HD-DVD over blu-ray. A thread was usually shutdown due to it getting off topic and way to much FUD on both sides. People like Lee Stewart and rdjam were pushed almost to non-existance once HD DVD died but they popup from time to time to push the new ememy of blu-ray, streaming.

AVS was almost as neutral as Microsoft was during the format edit war.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Monkey

AVS was almost as neutral as Microsoft was during the format.

During what format?