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

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Disciple of Vedder

Finally watched the "Fellowship" Blu Sunday night and then popped in the EE to watch the additional scenes. I must say, the EE looked like absolute GARBAGE compared to the Blu. The "Fellowship" Blu PQ might not be perfect, but it is immensely better than the EE. I was really surprised at how bad it looked considering that it's split into 2 discs to preserve PQ. Has anyone else noticed this? Watched it on a 50" Samsung plasma with the PS3.

Ever since I got my projector and started to enjoy blu-ray in general, I became sadly aware of just how *bad* those LOTR DVDs really were. Whenever I hear folks say "the upconverted LOTR DVDs look great so I'll skip the blu-ray" I have to shake my head in wonder for how much their system must be masking the benefits of high-definition.

As for me, I'm so glad to have at least the theatrical cuts on Blu now because I honestly couldn't bring myself to watch the DVDs (EE or otherwise) for the past few years given the distracting image flaws.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Disciple of Vedder

Finally watched the "Fellowship" Blu Sunday night and then popped in the EE to watch the additional scenes. I must say, the EE looked like absolute GARBAGE compared to the Blu. The "Fellowship" Blu PQ might not be perfect, but it is immensely better than the EE. I was really surprised at how bad it looked considering that it's split into 2 discs to preserve PQ. Has anyone else noticed this? Watched it on a 50" Samsung plasma with the PS3.

The EE DVD's don't look that bad on my 52" LCD using my BD35 to upconvert.
The FOTR blu-ray is better but not by much. The TTT & ROTK definitely have noticeable PQ improvements.
On my 117" screen, the EE's are tolerable(barely) and the FOTR blu-ray PQ definitely looks noticeably better then the EE DVD but waxy & soft.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Ever since I got my projector and started to enjoy blu-ray in general, I became sadly aware of just how *bad* those LOTR DVDs really were. Whenever I hear folks say "the upconverted LOTR DVDs look great so I'll skip the blu-ray" I have to shake my head in wonder for how much their system must be masking the benefits of high-definition.

As for me, I'm so glad to have at least the theatrical cuts on Blu now because I honestly couldn't bring myself to watch the DVDs (EE or otherwise) for the past few years given the distracting image flaws.

But how many people have a screen size/TV that is larger than 42" where they can really tell the difference?
Even on my 52", the LOTR DVD's doesn't look that bad.
In some cases, people who watch movies on our HDTV can not tell that it's DVD or blu-ray because the upconversion makes DVD's look pretty good on screens of my size and smaller.
Now, on my 117" people can definitely tell when it's blu-ray or DVD.

I would estimate that screen size larger than 42" are about 20% of HDTV's and only 1-2% have HD projectors with screens larger than 90".
Then you have the average viewing distance of 3-5x the TV size to negate the PQ improvement that could be seen.
I believe that's one of the biggest hurdles stopping most people from adopting blu-ray because they get a good upconvert player and are satisfied with the PQ on the HDTV and don't see the need to spend the extra cost for blu-ray discs/equipment.

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by radagast

"Lord of the Rings Trilogy in 2010 would be the better development."

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

"There may be lots of change and expand in the visuals. It would portrayed in a different way."

Same thing. How would they expand the visuals? How would it be "portrayed in a different way?"

The only thing I would disagree with, in your first sentence, is in regards to the screenplay. That was the weakest part of the movie.

It's a spammer. Look at the coupon link in the signature.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

It's a spammer. Look at the coupon link in the signature.

Can't. The post has been removed.

[wax1212]

I would estimate that screen size larger than 42" are about 20% of HDTV's and only 1-2% have HD projectors with screens larger than 90".
Then you have the average viewing distance of 3-5x the TV size to negate the PQ improvement that could be seen.
I believe that's one of the biggest hurdles stopping most people from adopting blu-ray because they get a good upconvert player and are satisfied with the PQ on the HDTV and don't see the need to spend the extra cost for blu-ray discs/equipment.[/QUOTE]

Since I watched my first bluray, I'll never go back to dvd. PQ are undoubtedly sharper, even on my 32" HDTV. I still appreciate the possibilities dvds had opened us to - if it wasn't dvds we wouldn't be here discussing blurays

[snowball_iv]

Lord of the Rings Trivia Pursuit Random Question of the Day:

From the blue category; Evil Characters.

What three things are "cold" in Gollum's rhyme?

*please don't search it, just use your own head*

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by snowball_iv

Lord of the Rings Trivia Pursuit Random Question of the Day:

From the blue category; Evil Characters.

What three things are "cold" in Gollum's rhyme?

*please don't search it, just use your own head*

Water, fish and rock are my only guess.

[snowball_iv]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

Water, fish and rock are my only guess.

That was my only thought too, but it isn't talking about that song i guess.

[Dreemworx]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

1. There has been no announcement of the EE being released on blu-ray.
Only speculation that they might be released several months prior to the Hobbit movie release but now that Del Toro has stepped down as director, who knows if/when the Hobbit will be released.

2. The EE is more walking and fillers. Doesn't really explain any mysterious but if you read the books, you might find them more revealing.

IIRC, the FOTR and TTT are about 30 minutes longer each and the ROTK is about an hour longer for the EE releases.
Each movie is already ~3 hours each for the theatrical version.

With the EE, you are looking at +3.5 hours for FOTR and TTT & about 4 hours for ROTK.


I've watched the theatrical version twice and find it quite enjoyable and just the right amount of duration to tell the story.

Thanks man...Im not waiting anymore...Ill get the box set on BRD now.

[Disciple of Vedder]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

I believe that's one of the biggest hurdles stopping most people from adopting blu-ray because they get a good upconvert player and are satisfied with the PQ on the HDTV and don't see the need to spend the extra cost for blu-ray discs/equipment.

I pity them. I have a friend who recently went Blu and he still buys some DVDs even when the price difference is only $5 or less. Of course, he is a current contender for "The Cheapest Man on the Planet" title, so that might have something to do with it. One time I pointed out some sale-priced Blus that were comedies, and he said he didn't see the point of buying a comedy on Blu-Ray. I didn't understand this point because I enjoy experiencing all movies in HD, regardless of genre.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by HDPlasma

The EE is more walking and fillers. Doesn't really explain any mysterious but if you read the books, you might find them more revealing.

In the ROTK EE it does reveal Saruman's ultimate fate.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Johnothan Pedak

In the ROTK EE it does reveal Saruman's ultimate fate.

It reveals Saruman's fate in Jackson's alternate universe Middle earth.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by radagast

It reveals Saruman's fate in Jackson's alternate universe Middle earth.

With the exception of the location being different, does he not still die the same way?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by snowball_iv

Lord of the Rings Trivia Pursuit Random Question of the Day:

From the blue category; Evil Characters.

What three things are "cold" in Gollum's rhyme?

*please don't search it, just use your own head*

The three things are "hand and heart and bone", but this poem was not spoken in the book by Gollum, but the the barrow-wight. I guess it makes sense that since the wight was not included in the movie, Gollum would be the next most likely being to cite it.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Johnothan Pedak

With the exception of the location being different, does he not still die the same way?

Well, there is a difference in emphasis and feel.

[Show spoiler]. In the book, Saruman tries to kill Frodo at Bag End but is foiled by Frodo's mithril coat. Saruman verbally abuses Wormtongue and kicks him, and Wormtongue kills Saruman, and in turn is killed by hobbit archers.

Because the circumstances are so different, the movie version seems odd.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Well, there is a difference in emphasis and feel.

[Show spoiler]. In the book, Saruman tries to kill Frodo at Bag End but is foiled by Frodo's mithril coat. Saruman verbally abuses Wormtongue and kicks him, and Wormtongue kills Saruman, and in turn is killed by hobbit archers.

Because the circumstances are so different, the movie version seems odd.

I have the same feelings regarding, how should I put this, The Scouring of Faramir. In the The Two Towers (book) he was a breath of fresh air from the endless dread about man being so corruptable.

I can look past a lot in the arguement about adaptations, but not him.

[snowball_iv]

I just started re-reading The Silmarillion and so far it is alot easier to follow along the 2nd time. Grant it i am only 25ish pages in but still

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Johnothan Pedak

I have the same feelings regarding, how should I put this, The Scouring of Faramir. In the The Two Towers (book) he was a breath of fresh air from the endless dread about man being so corruptable.

I can look past a lot in the arguement about adaptations, but not him.

A huge fault of the movie version. In the book, there are two men as major characters that are beyond corruption, Aragorn and Faramir; neither of them would have used the Ring, and Faramir even stated this fact. As representative Numenoreans (Faramir only slightly less due to lineage), they had no political interests, where "politics" to Tolkien was the use of power to bend the will of others in the pursuit of one's self-interests. Therefore, the depiction of Faramir as wanting to use the Ring against Sauron (using evil to subdue evil) is perhaps the most erroneous character blunder in the films.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by snowball_iv

I just started re-reading The Silmarillion and so far it is alot easier to follow along the 2nd time. Grant it i am only 25ish pages in but still

Are you using the Fonstad Atlas? Having read it several times, I still depend on the atlas to make sense of parts of the story, especially when the Elves arrive in Beleriand.