The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[vivancoman]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

I dunno, all the screencaps I've seen in these reviews look exactly like what I watched on Tuesday night - so it definitely doesn't seem like there's any kind of problem exclusive to the BD. Without comparing to the originals, I really like the look of pretty much all those caps except the shot of the hobbits in the snow (the "what about breakfast?" scene). That has a distinct overcast of green which does look kind of odd to me (I noticed it on Tuesday as well). The shots on Caradhras look fine to me though (the snow looks white to me, sky looks blue too). Overall, I'm pleased with the image, so I will still buy.

This is one of the cases i talk about

[Blu-Benny]

after reading the reviews of the EE's, i may have to pick these up when they are closer to $40/$45.

[MEB]

Originally Posted by vivancoman

Gotta chime in just registered today and saw this
But that is not true at all. There has been some people here that mention the change in color at the cinema also.

Matt's friend (the one that owns the expensive screening room set up where they compared the movies on a 120-inch screen) is a cinematographer. A professional who, by the very nature of the job, has an eye that is trained to recognize variances in color, tone, lighting, etc. This cinematographer went to a Tuesday night screening of FOTR EE and he said the movie did NOT have the green tint.

You'll forgive me for giving more credence to the opinion of someone that is a professional in the field.

Mark

[gstriftos]

Originally Posted by vivancoman

Gotta chime in just registered today and saw this
But that is not true at all. There has been some people here that mention the change in color at the cinema also.

There is no such thing as an optical or acoustical memory.
Without a side by side reference or comparison none can be 100% sure if what he saw in the cinema is in exact terms with the E.E.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by MEB

Robert, Your comments suddenly gave me an image in my head of Peter Jackson sitting at the controls of the digital color grading equipment, with a bottle of half-empty Jack Daniels on the side table, and him saying to the technician... "Let's screw with their heads!"

Seriously, though... If this teal/green/cyan look is what Jackson wants, then why weren't Two Towers and Return of the King given the same treatment? It appears obvious that those movie DID receive some new color timing, why not the same treatment as FOTR?

It just doesn't make any sense.

Mark

Because of the vociferous complaints about the Blu-Ray of the TE of Fellowship, Jackson decided to give Fellowship a new transfer. That's why the NEW master for Fellowship doesn't look like the OLD masters created for Two Towers and Return of the King.

Look, I don't ever tell an artist what he can and cannot do - what fool would - but I am particularly vocal when they change something for the worse (walkie talkies in E.T.). Are the new discs worse off? They're different, certainly, I think that's inarguable. If Jackson defends them (and boy is he silent right now) then this whole debate is over for me. I can gripe all I want about not liking the changes, but never in a million years would I tell Jackson what he should be doing with his own movies. Just as he can't stop me for not liking lines about Dwarf Tossing, I can't stop him for dropping the contrast and removing red from the film. If that is indeed what he wanted.

The man needs to speak up and end this.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by gstriftos

There is no such thing as an optical or acoustical memory.
Without a side by side reference or comparison none can be 100% sure if what he saw in the cinema is in exact terms with the E.E.

I was thinking the same thing - with some obvious exceptions.

[Matt_Stevens]

Originally Posted by MEB

Matt's friend (the one that owns the expensive screening room set up where they compared the movies on a 120-inch screen) is a cinematographer. A professional who, by the very nature of the job, has an eye that is trained to recognize variances in color, tone, lighting, etc. This cinematographer went to a Tuesday night screening of FOTR EE and he said the movie did NOT have the green tint.

You'll forgive me for giving more credence to the opinion of someone that is a professional in the field.

Mark

Just to clarify... There is a greenish cast to the theatrical Extended that played Tuesday. Just not nearly as green as on the Blu-Ray. That's the key. He did not see so much green in the snow and stated skies were more blue than green. He also was looking for this since he already had the Blu-Ray set.

The gentleman in question is a DP with 20+ years experience. He's shot 16mm, super16, 35mm (including Panavision, JDC scope, etc) and a variety of HD cameras. He knows what he is doing. He's semi-retired now, concentrating on other things. He's not old, so don't anyone say "Well he's semi-retired so his eyes must be bad" 50's is not old.

I called him today to tel him all the craziness online and his reaction was simple: "Why do you bother with the internet/ it's just a pit of slime."

Sometimes I wonder.

[frogmort]

Well, I just contacted Peter Jackson, and sent him this message:

" Why does 'The Fellowship Of The Ring' Extended Edition blu-ray look so green/cyan all the way through, when it has never looked this way before, and apparently 'The Two Towers' and 'Return Of The King' do not? Thank you."

(via facebook)

Hopefully, I'll be hearing from him shortly.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

To be clear, I really didn't want my verdict of the film's look on Tuesday to become a point of contention in this thread. For myself, the film did look just as the screenshots illustrate - but I'm not interested in challenging someone else's recollection.

At the very least, however, I would hope it's not debatable that the screening had different color timing from the original.

[Matt_Stevens]

Massive thunder and lightning outside. Good excuse for me to turn the computer off. Good luck, bickering, guys.

[gstriftos]

Originally Posted by MEB

Matt's friend (the one that owns the expensive screening room set up where they compared the movies on a 120-inch screen) is a cinematographer. A professional who, by the very nature of the job, has an eye that is trained to recognize variances in color, tone, lighting, etc. This cinematographer went to a Tuesday night screening of FOTR EE and he said the movie did NOT have the green tint.

You'll forgive me for giving more credence to the opinion of someone that is a professional in the field.

Mark

After reading a lot over the net i tend to agree with MEB and start to believe that there's been a ''mishappening''(don't know intentional or not) at some time of the remastering.
Won't cancel my order for a legitimate copy and hope to have it in hand by 22nd of June(goverments will we 'll not have been bankrupted ).
But wrong or right I think there will not be a replacement program.
Even if it does I 'll buy the new one and keep the ''incorrect'' crossing my fingers it will some day be of a highly collectible value(pls people send your copies if there is a recall) and become a millionare

[retablo]

Originally Posted by PGW

Um... No.

Snow isn't green.
The sky isn't green.
Whites aren't green.

That's not a matter of opinion. If you don't believe me, walk outside and look at the sky. Remember what snow looks like. Look at something white and... golly, it'll look white (which means NOT green).

The colors on the blu-ray are WRONG. If nothing else, the fact that film #1 has a green tint to it and the other two DON'T should tell you THAT much.

The whites of the actor's eyes ISN'T green though... no one seems to have noticed that little fact. If the whole thing was lathered with a green tint, then the whites of eyes would ALSO be green just like the snow. Which pretty much says to me that it's ALL intentional.

[Karl Murks]

Well, if that's the case a lot of people will be genuinely pissed and hopefully create a shitstorm of unforeseen proportions for the ones responsible...

[Petyr_Baelish]

I hope you all are proud. I requested a cancel for my pre-order at the WBstore and told them why in the email: so they get the message.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens

Since I have been mentioned here, I want to make some things very clear.

Many AVSforum know me. I post over there and not over here (though I used to) because things here can get very nasty at times. thanks to Ken for cleaning this thread up though.

I watched the actual new Blu-Rays for the extended editions this week at my friend's place. He has a screening room with a 120 inch screen. He can play Blu-Rays, HD-DVD, D-VHS, 16mm and 35mm.

We compared the FOTR Extended BD to the theatrical BD, the Theatrical HD broadcast from DISH Network HD-PPV via D-VHS and a 35mm trailer for the film.

All but the extended Blu-Ray have similar, if not exactly the same color timing. It was hard to see much difference between them.

The extended, very much so. It was clearly turned towards green throughout. Sometimes not so much, but more often than not. It looked off. It looked wrong. It's not how the film looked in theaters. And according to my host, who is a cinematographer, it is not how it looked at the Digital screening last Tuesday at the AMC Theater where he viewed it. So perhaps something happened in the mastering stage that was in error. ??? Maybe we will never know.

No doubt there is less DNR in this version, so all the blurriness and mushiness of the Theatrical Blu-Ray is gone. But with more green colors and a pushed contrast. It's a trade-off.

TWO TOWERS and KING have what appear to be new color timing, but it's not all that far off from what came before. They are, in fact, outstanding. Bye bye blurry DNR'd image and hello detail.

These were our observations. Take them as you want to. But for the love of God, be respectful and act like adults. There is no reason to do otherwise.

Great info Matt, thanks. I was the one who linked your thoughts by the way as I thought some would appreciate (like me) reading impressions from someone who not only has seen the blu, but has done the comparison that you guys did. Sorry for whatever hassle it caused you.

[RYJAPE21]

The new review has me convinced: I am beyond excited for the 28th

[Petyr_Baelish]

42041's white balanced images are what convinced me. They could easily fix this problem: so I will wait. It may be difficult, but I will wait.

On a side note: I always did feel uneasy about paying for extras that I already had on nine dvds.

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by brodo faggins

what's going on? Its been a dozen or so posts since i read "... This is how pj intended it to look... "

lol...

[Illy Scorsese]

Originally Posted by Brodo Faggins

What's going on? Its been a dozen or so posts since I read "... this is how PJ intended it to look... "

*On the floor laughing*

[42041]

Originally Posted by retablo

The whites of the actor's eyes ISN'T green though... no one seems to have noticed that little fact. If the whole thing was lathered with a green tint, then the whites of eyes would ALSO be green just like the snow. Which pretty much says to me that it's ALL intentional.

What screen cap are you referring to? The white of snow reflecting light into the camera and the white of an eyeball are pretty different, photographically, and the degree to which the green cast looks "wrong" seems to greatly depend on the brightness and color balance of what it's laid over...

By the way, it should be reiterated that I've checked these comparisons on several displays, and some do not render the green cast as dramatically as others. My laptop's LCD screen renders the green as a faint blue to the point where it really doesn't look "wrong". If anyone's struggling to understand what the hubbub is about, you might try some other monitors.