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

[AVfile]

Yes it is mentioned nearly every page of this thread.

[blurayisnice]

Originally Posted by TheWalkingDead

Is there a good chance of this being $35 - $40 around the holidays ?

I bought mine from Amazon UK (same as this set) for $33 shipped to the Netherlands a few weeks back .

[Jafar]

Originally Posted by blurayisnice

I bought mine from Amazon UK (same as this set) for $33 shipped to the Netherlands a few weeks back .

UK release is Region B locked.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Technically, that is an incorrect statement. The films very well COULD fit onto a single disc each. However, in order to do that much would have to be sacrificed. First to go would be the amazing commentary tracks included. Then, the audio tracks would likely get compressed all to hell. And finally, the video would get compressed to a degree that would allow it to all fit on a single disc.

Long story short... it could be done but the films would look and sound like shit!

I Still think it would have fit without sacrificing anything, just look at Lawrence of Arabia, according to dvdBeaver the film uses around 45Gb, and it has uncompressed audio and one compressed dub, the picture is amazing even at 22Mbps bitrate, also the commentaries aren't probably uncompressed or in 5.1 channels, so they don't take much space.

I Guess doing that would be more work for the company releasing them, since they already did the work for the dvd's, also they could fit all the special features of each movie in one BD-25, so they could release the whole package in 6 BDs, but the issue is they would probably could not justify the price then.

[invenio]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I Still think it would have fit without sacrificing anything, just look at Lawrence of Arabia, according to dvdBeaver the film uses around 45Gb, and it has uncompressed audio and one uncompressed dub, the picture is amazing even at 22Mbps bitrate, also the commentaries aren't probably uncompressed or in 5.1 channels, so they don't take much space.

I Guess doing that would be more for the company releasing them, since they already did the work for the dvd's, also they could fit all the special features of each movie in one BD-25, so they could release the whole package in 6 BDs, but the issue is they would probably could not justify the price then.

Well, the EE's are much higher bitrate that 22 mbps and containe many more audio tracks (4 commentary ones alone). It seems like the LOTR:EE have almost a 50% higher bitrate than Lawrence of Arabia just on the video side of things! That's rather substantial. I would much rather have a better looking picture and have to switch a disc than compromise on the quality of the video and audio.

I found this info at :http://www.avsforum.com/t/1342504/th...blu-ray-review

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring comes to Blu-ray Disc from Warner featuring 1080p AVC encoded video that has an average bitrate of 30 Mbps and lossless DTS-HD 6.1 Master Audio sound that has an average bitrate of 4.2 Mbps.

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers comes to Blu-ray Disc from Warner featuring 1080p AVC encoded video that has an average bitrate of 31 Mbps and lossless DTS-HD 6.1 Master Audio sound that has an average bitrate of 4.2 Mbps.

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King comes to Blu-ray Disc from Warner featuring 1080p AVC encoded video that has an average bitrate of 29 Mbps and lossless DTS-HD 6.1 Master Audio sound that has an average bitrate of 4.3 Mbps.

[JavaJulien]

Originally Posted by TheWalkingDead

Is there a good chance of this being $35 - $40 around the holidays ?

Last Black Friday it was selling for $39.99 at Best Buy and on Amazon during one of their Lightning Deals, so the chances of it happening again is high.

[TheWalkingDead]

Originally Posted by blurayisnice

I bought mine from Amazon UK (same as this set) for $33 shipped to the Netherlands a few weeks back .

Great price!

Originally Posted by JavaJulien

Last Black Friday it was selling for $39.99 at Best Buy and on Amazon during one of their Lightning Deals, so the chances of it happening again is high.

I read about that, it would be nice if it does $40 again around the coming holidays It's $49.99 right now on Amazon til' the 27th. I just got the theatrical Used from Gohastings, so I guess I can hold out for now.

[RyanPom]

It would be nice if they would tell us what's on the Hobbit thing by now.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I Still think it would have fit without sacrificing anything, just look at Lawrence of Arabia, according to dvdBeaver the film uses around 45Gb, and it has uncompressed audio and one compressed dub, the picture is amazing even at 22Mbps bitrate, also the commentaries aren't probably uncompressed or in 5.1 channels, so they don't take much space.

I Guess doing that would be more work for the company releasing them, since they already did the work for the dvd's, also they could fit all the special features of each movie in one BD-25, so they could release the whole package in 6 BDs, but the issue is they would probably could not justify the price then.

As was mentioned in response to you by someone else, your comparative scenario is far too different in its relative details to make a judgement on the potential situation.

Besides, I really don't see how anyone can really be that upset about taking 30 seconds (or less) to change a disc after over an hour of sitting still. It's the perfect opportunity to take a bathroom break and refresh your drink/snacks.

[Doc Ostrow]

My last post on this topic was on 06-18-2011. My old television was a Sony 60" rear projection HDTV that I bought in the fall of 2005. The colors were starting to turn green because the heat from the intense incandescent light were affecting the 3 LCD mirrored chips. Also, the 3 LCDs were not correctly aligned and couldn't be changed.

Since then I bought a new Samsung UN60D7000 LED HDTV in March 2012 and had it calibrated based on a review by 3D TV buying guide http://3d-tvbuyingguide.com/samsung/...un55d7000.html. The picture looks fantastic! It looks much better than the normal settings that Samsung has.

I really enjoy the picture quality of the LOTR extended editions, which is much sharper and better color than the original LOTR Blu-rays.

[rikraq]

So frustrating. I keep trying to get the individual sets, but Amazon sends 2 with the slipcover and 1 without. I get it from B&N online and they have 1 plastic wrapped so it damaged the slipcover and the ones they have in store don't have a slipcover. WTF?

[Edword]

Originally Posted by rikraq

So frustrating. I keep trying to get the individual sets, but Amazon sends 2 with the slipcover and 1 without. I get it from B&N online and they have 1 plastic wrapped so it damaged the slipcover and the ones they have in store don't have a slipcover. WTF?

They're a year old now, it isn't that surprising that some don't have slips.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by therealdjnugz

LOTR extended trilogy is definitely my favorite set of blurays I own. I literally marathon the entire trilogy once every couple months. I never gave LOTR a chance until about 9 months ago when I borrowed it from a friend. I was never into fantasy or middle earthly type of stuff. Afterwards I immediately bought it and can't stop watching it still. Anyone have any movie suggestions that are similar to LOTR? Obviously nothing can be as good.

Nothing will come close to Lord of The Rings not even the Hobbit .

[pjl80]

Originally Posted by rikraq

So frustrating. I keep trying to get the individual sets, but Amazon sends 2 with the slipcover and 1 without. I get it from B&N online and they have 1 plastic wrapped so it damaged the slipcover and the ones they have in store don't have a slipcover. WTF?

I am having this exact same problem. Was it The Two Towers that you had an issue with? I got Amazon to send me three copies over a week, one was sans slipcover and the other two had shrinkwrap around the entire slipcover. Which not only damaged it, but hid the fact that the blu-ray case inside was not sealed and had obviously been opened before.

[Falaskan]

When Gandalf sees Bilbo in the beginning of TFOTR, he says "you haven't aged a day." So would you all be in favor of having Martin Freeman replace Ian Holm on his pre-Rivendel scenes?

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

When Gandalf sees Bilbo in the beginning of TFOTR, he says "you haven't aged a day." So would you all be in favor of having Martin Freeman replace Ian Holm on his pre-Rivendel scenes?

Nope. There's no real point: the staging of the scene isn't the same, anyway. I'm content to have the scene in Fellowship be a flashback fom Bilbo as he then is; we colour all our memories with how we see ourselves at the time we do the remembering, so it's fair enough that Bilbo in his memory would reflect how he looked by the time Fellowship came along.

Besides, when Gandalf says the "haven't aged a day" line, it's a social nicety meaning Bilbo's barely changed compared to the time that's gone by. He's not saying "You look photo-identical to how you did back then."

No Anikins in this flick, please.

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

When Gandalf sees Bilbo in the beginning of TFOTR, he says "you haven't aged a day." So would you all be in favor of having Martin Freeman replace Ian Holm on his pre-Rivendel scenes?

It would be interesting in The Hobbit Part 3 if they recreate the opening scenes of LOTR with Freeman, but they already used Holm, so they'll probably just leave it alone.

[Panama Jack]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

When Gandalf sees Bilbo in the beginning of TFOTR, he says "you haven't aged a day." So would you all be in favor of having Martin Freeman replace Ian Holm on his pre-Rivendel scenes?

That doesn't necessarily mean, "you haven't aged a day [since the events of The Hobbit]" --- because it could mean "you haven't aged a day [since the last time I saw you]", which could have been years after the events of the Hobbit.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Besides, when Gandalf says the "haven't aged a day" line, it's a social nicety meaning Bilbo's barely changed compared to the time that's gone by. He's not saying "You look photo-identical to how you did back then."

Well, it's somewhere in between - his tone of voice suggests it's an odd thing that he's mulling over. But it also doesn't mean that he should look identical (after all, even taking Freeman out of the equation, Holm doesn't look identical in the flashback and the Bag End scenes). Just that he isn't nearly as old as he should be - compare how he looks when they get to Rivendell and you can see why Gandalf would be perplexed by Bilbo's extremely slow (but not non-existent) aging.

[RYJAPE21]

Originally Posted by Panama Jack

That doesn't necessarily mean, "you haven't aged a day [since the events of The Hobbit]" --- because it could mean "you haven't aged a day [since the last time I saw you]", which could have been years after the events of the Hobbit.

Exactly. We don't know when Gandalf last saw Bilbo and since Frodo knows him so well it's assumed he visited frequently (thought maybe not for a year or so).