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

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

They have a full page ad on the back cover of the May issue of Home Theater Magazine for LOTR. First time I have seen a full page ad for a Blu

Because LOTR is just that big. The movie made 3 billion dollars in the theater, 1 Billion came from the US alone.

[BankytheHack]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I agree with almost all of what you said with the exception of the Scouring of the Shire. At the time the movies were made, I have no doubt that it was the right decision to excise, but I think they had no idea how much money these movies would go on to make. I think had they known how successful they were going to be, they might have had a truncated version with Sauruman getting the shaft so to speak.

Yeah, but the scouring of the shire was something Tolkien could get away with in book form. A lot of people pissed and moaned enough with the ending "Return of the King" had. Can you imagine the *****ing if there were an additional 30 minutes about enslaved Hobbits?

I'm reminded of the famous Roger Corman quote where he says, and I'm para-phrasing, "once the monster is dead your movie is over". In LOTR's case, the monster is the Ring/Sauron. Of course, being that it was a trilogy you simply couldn't have Gollum and the Ring fall into the Cracks of Doom and then roll credits. We had earned decent send-offs for our characters, and the Grey Havens scene was absolutely crucial.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I agree with almost all of what you said with the exception of the Scouring of the Shire. At the time the movies were made, I have no doubt that it was the right decision to excise, but I think they had no idea how much money these movies would go on to make. I think had they known how successful they were going to be, they might have had a truncated version with Sauruman getting the shaft so to speak.

I'm a bit on the fence with this one -- Tolkien was making a thematic point (the Shire had to pay a price for the war) but while Tolkien could do that in his book, Jackson was making a movie.

Yes, they could have had what I would term a "Die Hard 1" moment in the narrative, where the Hobbits return to the Shire in victory, only to have evil baddies from film 1 and 2 pop up forcing a bit of last minute carnage, and that would accomplish Tolkien's point...but at the same time audiences seeing the mterial for the first time woud have already been through so much (and let's face it, the Hobbits would have already been through so much), I can easily see why they thought a thrilling final battle was gratuitous. It isn't as Jackson didn't like the chapter. He was making a movie. It would be like the shark in Jaws showing up at the Brody household at the end of Jaws. ROTK already saw complaints about too many endings, imagine the frustration with a Saruman/Wormtongue/Hobbit smackdown at the end of ROTK. I'm not saying that can't work (not the shark in Jaws example, but more plausible examples) -- but ultimately I think Jackson and Walsh made the right decision. Could they have made it work? Yeah. Did the film need the scene? Nope.

Thats why it's gone.

[Ken Brown]

Okay, gents... sink in. I had the opportunity to view a theatrical print of 'Fellowship of the Ring' last night and would like to share my thoughts. First though, a few disclaimers. One: the print I viewed was not in pristine condition. Small scratches, reasonable wear-n-tear, and slight hitches appeared throughout the film, all of which were clearly attributable to age, and not the original source. Two: everyone should read the article excerpt "42041" posted in this thread and pay careful attention to Lesnie's comments on generation loss. I'm sure it applies to what I encountered.

So... everyone put your swords down. Please don't start swinging and quoting until you read everything I have to say. I'm going to be as forthright and honest as I possibly can.

Simply put, I walked away with one impression last night: "everyone's right about something in this argument."

First and foremost, the scenes in question. You know the ones. The Shire, Bilbo's party, Bag End, the Council of Elrond, etc. The scenes some have claimed exhibit additional DNR (beyond any noise reduction already used in the original DI), and others claim are just intentionally soft. My theatrical viewing revealed that these scenes are indeed soft, but that the Blu-ray transfer exhibits additional smearing. Scenes like the one in which Gandalf talks with Bilbo, the wizard's face, beard, and robe (as well as Bilbo's face) display more fine detail. Period. However, these fine details weren't quite as sharp as they appear to be in the HD broadcast. This suggests a few possibilities (at least in my mind). One, that the HD broadcast has either been artificially sharpened to a small degree, the screenshots of it have been sharpened, or the focus of the print I viewed was a hair off (hurrah, more ambiguity). Two, the Blu-ray transfer, whether approved by Jackson or not, has received additional noise reduction that did not exist in the original print. Either Jackson and his team added it, Warner added it, or it's not DNR at all, but rather some other anomaly in the process. Three, that minor smearing is much different than filmic softness, so long as you recognize the fine line between the two.

What caused this specific smearing? Honestly, I doubt we'll ever know. However, whether it's attributable to the limitations of the Blu-ray format, DNR, or some other issue, the simple fact is that it exists and, like others have reported, is a bit obvious when comparing it to a theatrical print. Is it as bad as I first assumed? To be blunt, no. I'm still disheartened that the transfer's clarity isn't perfect, and has been affected to some degree, but it isn't as debilitating as I first thought. That being said, the DNR was only a small part of my low score. So what of the other issues I mentioned? They allowed me to play a fun little game I like to call, "I'm right! I'm wrong. I'm right! I'm wrong."

1. The somewhat unstable on-screen elements at the beginning of the movie. Verdict? Unclear. Since theatrical prints wobble ever so slightly, it was impossible to tell. However, the remastering of the film could have feasibly resolved issues like this one.

2. Color saturation. Verdict? The theatrical print was more pleasing in this regard, but since Jackson worked so closely with color timing on this release, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the Blu-ray transfer and say it's a truer reflection of Jackson's intentions.

3. Fine Detail. Verdict? Still an issue, albeit to a lesser degree than I once thought.

4. Nighttime murkiness. Verdict? Slightly more detail was visible in the theatrical print. It appears the Blu-ray transfer has somewhat darker contrast. Again though, since Jackson adjusted the tone of the film, I'm more apt to go with the Blu-ray transfer on this one.

5. Waxy textures. Verdict? It's impossible to dissect without elaborate screenshots, but soft textures are NOT waxy textures. Sharpen waxy textures all you want, you won't bring back pores or hairs that have been smeared away. The Blu-ray exhibits SOME smearing in SOME scenes. Again though, it isn't as bad as I initially thought (if it was once an 8 out of 10 on my severity scale, it's now a 4 or so).

6. Gandalf's Shire visit and his ride to Isengard. Verdict? I really preferred the theatrical print here. The trees had more varied green hues when Gandalf approaches Isengard, and the Shire looks less... hm... syrupy? I don't have an adjective to describe it. Regardless, this traces back to color and stability. Jackson approved the colors, but as I mentioned, the stability should have been resolved.

7. The Council of Elrond. Verdict? I had forgotten how bad this scene looked theatrically. The integration of various effects and elements undermines the integrity of the shot. That being said, closeups exhibit more fine detail and more refined grain in the theatrical print. The Blu-ray exhibits some smearing. Again though, whether it's the result of DNR or some other factor is beyond my expertise.

8. Weathertop. Verdict? Actually looks sharper in the theatrical print. Mind you, this instance doesn't involve smearing. The Blu-ray transfer is just a wee bit softer. Jackson? Color timing? Other adjustments in the new master? Perhaps.

9. The skies as the Fellowship approach the snowy mountains. Verdict? Much cleaner in the theatrical print. In fact, I can safely say all the artifacting that appears in the Blu-ray transfer (though brief and fleeting as it is) is attributable to the transfer and nothing else. Still, it was a minor issue in the first place, so no big loss.

I could go on, scene by scene, at length, but I believe those were the big points of contention. If anyone has a specific question about a specific discrepancy I didn't address, feel free to ask. I took ridiculously extensive notes and I'm more than happy to share my impressions. (Just keep in mind all of this is yet another subjective analysis).

So... where does that leave us? Well, first, I made some adjustments to my official review. After weighing all of the evidence, my 'FotR' score will increase to something in the range of a 3.0-3.5. (Which one doesn't really matter since either score will increase the set's video average to a 4).Subsequently, I'll be refining my 'TTT' and 'RotK' video reviews to reflect my 'FotR' findings. Second, while it doesn't change the debate, it hopefully will help change the tone in here. There are still differences between the transfer and the print, but it comes down to one's sensitivity to the transfer's issues and one's understanding of how the film is meant to look. Both camps are right in some regard, both camps are wrong in another.

I'd be happy to answer any questions. Again, just keep in mind that my theatrical viewing, my review revisions, and this post still hinge on a subjective opinion. For all the fury these transfers have stirred up, everyone should remember that any viewing of a film comes down to a subjective impression of it. Not a scientifically accurate analysis of it. We would all do well to remember this.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who has posted in this incredibly interesting thread. The one thing that hasn't changed? My recommendation to pick up this release. It's 'LotR' in high definition, for goodness sake

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

No idea what that means.

It means that he was talking about HD broadcasting which actually is only in 1080i. NOT pay-per-view. Thus your comment about pay-per-view being broadcast in 1080p and the discussion of broadcasting and pay-per-view period is rather "irrelevant" to a TOLR discussion thread.

[42041]

Thanks for your impressions Ken.
I'm assuming all HD transfers were made from the same intermediate film element that the prints would be made from. If there's a video version that doesn't feature DNR in a scene it probably wasn't DNRd on the print.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

I had the opportunity to view a theatrical print of 'Fellowship of the Ring' last night and would like to share my thoughts.

Thanks for the extra effort you put into this, Ken. It is much appreciated!

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Okay, gents... sink in. I had the opportunity to view a theatrical print of 'Fellowship of the Ring' last night and would like to share my thoughts. First though, a few disclaimers. One: the print I viewed was not in pristine condition. Small scratches, reasonable wear-n-tear, and slight hitches appeared throughout the film, all of which were clearly attributable to age, and not the original source. Two: everyone should read the article excerpt "42041" posted in this thread and pay careful attention to Lesnie's comments on generation loss. I'm sure it applies to what I encountered.

So... everyone put your swords down. Please don't start swinging and quoting until you read everything I have to say. I'm going to be as forthright and honest as I possibly can.

Simply put, I walked away with one impression last night: "everyone's right about something in this argument."

First and foremost, the scenes in question. You know the ones. The Shire, Bilbo's party, Bag End, the Council of Elrond, etc. The scenes some have claimed exhibit additional DNR (beyond any noise reduction already used in the original DI), and others claim are just intentionally soft. My theatrical viewing revealed that these scenes are indeed soft, but that the Blu-ray transfer exhibits additional smearing. Scenes like the one in which Gandalf talks with Bilbo, the wizard's face, beard, and robe (as well as Bilbo's face) display more fine detail. Period. However, these fine details weren't quite as sharp as they appear to be in the HD broadcast. This suggests a few possibilities (at least in my mind). One, that the HD broadcast has either been artificially sharpened to a small degree, the screenshots of it have been sharpened, or the focus of the print I viewed was a hair off (hurrah, more ambiguity). Two, the Blu-ray transfer, whether approved by Jackson or not, has received additional noise reduction that did not exist in the original print. Either Jackson and his team added it, Warner added it, or it's not DNR at all, but rather some other anomaly in the process. Three, that minor smearing is much different than filmic softness, so long as you recognize the fine line between the two.

What caused this specific smearing? Honestly, I doubt we'll ever know. However, whether it's attributable to the limitations of the Blu-ray format, DNR, or some other issue, the simple fact is that it exists and, like others have reported, is a bit obvious when viewing a theatrical print. Is it as bad as I first assumed? To be blunt, no. I'm still disheartened that the transfer's clarity isn't perfect, and has been affected to some degree, but it isn't as debilitating as I first thought. That being said, the DNR was only a small part of my low score. So what of the other issues I mentioned? They allowed me to play a fun little game I like to call, "I'm right! I'm wrong. I'm right! I'm wrong."

1. The somewhat unstable on-screen elements at the beginning of the movie. Verdict? Unclear. Since theatrical prints wobble ever so slightly, it was impossible to tell. However, the remastering of the film could have feasibly resolved issues like this one.

2. Color saturation. Verdict? The theatrical print was more pleasing in this regard, but since Jackson worked so closely with color timing on this release, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the Blu-ray transfer and say it's a truer reflection of Jackson's intentions.

3. Fine Detail. Verdict? Still an issue, albeit to a lesser degree than I once thought.

4. Nighttime murkiness. Verdict? Slightly more detail was visible in the theatrical print. It appears the Blu-ray transfer has somewhat darker contrast. Again though, since Jackson adjusted the tone of the film, I'm more apt to go with the Blu-ray transfer on this one.

5. Waxy textures. Verdict? It's impossible to dissect without elaborate screenshots, but soft textures are NOT waxy textures. Sharpen waxy textures all you want, you won't bring back pores or hairs that have been smeared away. The Blu-ray exhibits SOME smearing in SOME scenes. Again though, it isn't as bad as I initially thought (if it was once an 8 out of 10 on my severity scale, it's now a 4 or so).

6. Gandalf's Shire visit and his ride to Isengard. Verdict? I really preferred the theatrical print here. The trees had more varied green hues when Gandalf approaches Isengard, and the Shire looks less... hm... syrupy? I don't have an adjective to describe it. Regardless, this traces back to color and stability. Jackson approved the colors, but as I mentioned, the stability should have been resolved.

7. The Council of Elrond. Verdict? I had forgotten how bad this scene looked theatrically. The integration of various effects and elements undermines the integrity of the shot. That being said, closeups exhibit more fine detail and more refined grain in the theatrical print. The Blu-ray exhibits some smearing. Again though, whether it's the result of DNR or some other factor is beyond my expertise.

8. Weathertop. Verdict? Actually looks sharper in the theatrical print. Mind you, this instance doesn't involve smearing. The Blu-ray transfer is just a wee bit softer. Jackson? Color timing? Other adjustments in the new master? Perhaps.

9. The skies as the Fellowship approach the snowy mountains. Verdict? Much cleaner in the theatrical print. In fact, I can safely say all the artifacting that appears in the Blu-ray transfer (though brief and fleeting as it is) is attributable to the transfer and nothing else. Still, it was a minor issue in the first place, so no big loss.

I could go on, scene by scene, at length, but I believe those were the big points of contention. If anyone has a specific question about a specific discrepancy I didn't address, feel free to ask. I took ridiculously extensive notes and I'm more than happy to share my impressions. (Just keep in mind all of this is yet another subjective analysis).

So... where does that leave us? Well, first, I made some adjustments to my official review. After weighing all of the evidence, my 'FotR' score will increase to something in the range of a 3.0-3.5. (Which one doesn't really matter since either score will increase the set's video average to a 4).Subsequently, I'll be refining my 'TTT' and 'RotK' video reviews to reflect my 'FotR' findings. Second, while it doesn't change the debate, it hopefully will help change the tone in here. There are still differences between the transfer and the print, but it comes down to one's sensitivity to the transfer's issues and one's understanding of how the film is meant to look. Both camps are right in some regard, both camps are wrong in another.

I'd be happy to answer any questions. Again, just keep in mind that my theatrical viewing, my review revisions, and this post still hinge on a subjective opinion. For all the fury these transfers have stirred up, everyone should remember that any viewing of a film comes down to a subjective impression of it. Not a scientifically accurate analysis of it. We would all do well to remember this.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who has posted in this incredibly interesting thread. The one thing that hasn't changed? My recommendation to pick up this release. It's 'LotR' in high definition, for goodness sake

You have been working your butt of on this review, are you sure that still want to do reviews on highly anticipated blu ray release

[raygendreau]

Ken Brown

Any additional thoughts on Audio Quality since reviewing the 35 mm theatrical print?

[lDlisturb3d]

i think the overall score should be higher than 4.0 Theres allot of movies on here that have a overall 5.0 without good extras no PQ

[BluLobsta]

Thanks for the updated review Ken! I'm learning quite a bit, this is really cool So far the only thing that bugs me is a night scene from Public Enemies perhaps

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Ken Brown

Any additional thoughts on Audio Quality since reviewing the 35 mm theatrical print?

Sadly, no. In all my print scouring, it never occurred to me to pay much attention to audio quality

I already slapped myself on the forehead after reading the Hollywood News article NYorker linked to this morning. It would have been fun to compare the theatrical, DVD, and Blu-ray audio tracks to see how apparent any differences are. Ah well. Next time I guess

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by deeman54

i think the overall score should be higher than 4.0 Theres allot of movies on here that have a overall 5.0 without good extras no PQ

A new debate emerges

[Hep]

Awesome work Ken! All that info is greatly appreciated.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Sadly, no. In all my print scouring, it never occurred to me to pay much attention to audio quality

I already slapped myself on the forehead after reading the Hollywood News article NYorker linked to this morning. It would have been fun to compare the theatrical, DVD, and Blu-ray audio tracks to see how apparent any differences are. Ah well. Next time I guess

While that would've been nice Ken, you've already put in more than enough work on the blu-ray releases of these 3 excellent films. We appreciate your calm reactions to feedback and the all the detailed analysis and work you've given us.

[Mahatma]

Evenb though I still dissagree with you on PQ quality score,atleast you show dedication

Did someone on this forum show up on your door?

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Sadly, no. In all my print scouring, it never occurred to me to pay much attention to audio quality

I already slapped myself on the forehead after reading the Hollywood News article NYorker linked to this morning. It would have been fun to compare the theatrical, DVD, and Blu-ray audio tracks to see how apparent any differences are. Ah well. Next time I guess

Thanks for the speedy reply.
Yes, the article was what prompted me to ask.
Your re-review will probably result in another 10,000 posts in this thread.
Can't wait to read em all!

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Okay, gents... sink in. I had the opportunity to view a theatrical print of 'Fellowship of the Ring' last night and would like to share my thoughts.

Great review once again Ken. I am glad you changed the score for FOTR to the better after seing the theatrical prints again. Because it really isn't as bad as some people say.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by deeman54

Because LOTR is just that big. The movie made 3 billion dollars in the theater, 1 Billion came from the US alone.

I've seen two page adds for Avatar.

[Blu Titan]

The top-selling new release of the week was Warner’s Blu-ray Disc release of Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy. The pricey set, which lists for $99.98, debuted at No. 5 on the First Alert sales chart and No. 1 on the Nielsen VideoScan Blu-ray Disc sales chart.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/res...op-spots-19078