A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Lord of the Rings Trilogy - Extended Edition -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[David Weicker]

The other thing to consider about all these discussions is there never is one definitive theatrical version. When you go to the theater, is it going to be in focus? Did the projectionist cut back on the lighting to 'save bulb life'? Did they forget to remove the 3D filter on a 2D film? Is the physical screen itself old, or the same color from one cineplex to another, or warped? Is the color/contrast/brightness the same between a 3d film and its 2d version?

So when there is a discussion about replicating the theatrical experience, whose experience should we replicate?

Really when it comes down to it, the only person who can say whether a home video version is acceptable is the director (or perhaps the cinematographer).

David

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by TravisR
^ Yep and that's exactly why I used the word "almost".

Ok. What exactly then are you trying to imply? It reads as though you are saying that the controversy is unwarranted because that's what happens with "almost" all other popular catalog releases.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Jarod M
The questions about the color in the final scene of Taxi Driver-should it be how it was originally intended, or keep the censored version that played in theaters?
And the look of The Godfather caused some consternation, though the detailed explanation about the work done satisfied most.

Taxi Driver, ok there was some limited grumbling about that. Sony did the right thing and the great majority of reasonable people are satisfied with that release.

I don't remember seeing any complaints regarding The Godfather.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert


I don't remember seeing any complaints regarding The Godfather.

I wont speak for Travis, but there are a lot of people that regardless of what American Zoetrope say ,find The Godather way to grainy and a mess. And yes, these people understand film grain and how it's important to the film and all that jazz. Considering that, some find the picture noisy from all the grain.

I agree with Travis to a point too. I don't think I'd own any Blu-Rays based solely on all the nit picking that goes on in these forums. Yes, the screen caps on this release showing the tint on the snow is larger then a nit pick. That said, it's hard to find any release that doesn't have some one up in arms about something.

It's an individual choice. I find in my experience to trust the words of Bill Hunt and Robert Harris so I'll take a crack at the set. If it ends up being a legitimate mistake in the manufacturing, Warner Bros' have a history of replacing discs. I'm not too concerned.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Russell G
I wont speak for Travis, but there are a lot of people that regardless of what American Zoetrope say ,find The Godather way to grainy and a mess. And yes, these people understand film grain and how it's important to the film and all that jazz. Considering that, some find the picture noisy from all the grain.

Where are these comments?

 

[TravisR]

 Ok. What exactly then are you trying to imply? It reads as though you are saying that the controversy is unwarranted because that's what happens with "almost" all other popular catalog releases.

I meant that with many high profile catalog titles, there's frequently a controversy with some aspect of the release (whether it's warranted or unwarranted) and I fully expected the same with the LOTR set. And I expect the same with the Star Wars set and maybe Citizen Kane or Ben Hur and the eventual Indiana Jones set, the remaining James Bond movies, E.T., Jaws and basically any movie with a fanbase.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by David Weicker
The other thing to consider about all these discussions is there never is one definitive theatrical version. When you go to the theater, is it going to be in focus? Did the projectionist cut back on the lighting to 'save bulb life'? Did they forget to remove the 3D filter on a 2D film? Is the physical screen itself old, or the same color from one cineplex to another, or warped? Is the color/contrast/brightness the same between a 3d film and its 2d version?

So when there is a discussion about replicating the theatrical experience, whose experience should we replicate?

Really when it comes down to it, the only person who can say whether a home video version is acceptable is the director (or perhaps the cinematographer).

David

Forget the theatrical cinema experience and just give us a blu ray release derived from the original camera negative scanned at 4k to make a brand new master using the most up to date technology and don't overdo the digital tools and change the colours and i guarantee 99.9% of people will be happy.

Obviously in the case of this film they cannot scan at 4K that and thats true of digitally shot 2K films too but you know my meaning and for older films or 35mm shot modern movies the minimum should be 4K scans and minimal digital tinkering.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
Forget the theatrical cinema experience and just give us a blu ray release derived from the original camera negative scanned at 4k to make a brand new master using the most up to date technology and don't overdo the digital tools and change the colours and i guarantee 99.9% of people will be happy.

Maybe not 99.9% but basically, yep.

 

[Mark Booth]

Someone finally did a review that actually addresses the color timing issues found in EE FOTR Blu-ray:

http://blubrew.com/2011/06/16/the-fellowship-of-the-ring-extended-edition/

A good, honest review. However, it's my opinion that the reviewer was too willing to discount the "bad" just because there was much "good" to be found with the transfer.

For such an important movie, released in an expensive 15-disc boxed set, it should ALL be "good". There should not be any significant issues whatsoever.

Mark

 

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
They did a good job but i was speaking more on a purists point, i think it happens too often these days where a director or studio changes the colour timing, some films such as Disneys Alice In Wonderland have subtle colours which Disney have just destroyed with their latest blu ray and dvd release, mind you Disney seem hell bent on doing this to all their animated titles.

I just think if the film looked a certain way in 1979 or 1986 then keep it that way, give us a great film presentation but keep the filmed look, i would even say keep the wires and mistakes in, thats part of the film history and should be preserved.

Agreed.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Forget the theatrical cinema experience and just give us a blu ray release derived from the original camera negative scanned at 4k to make a brand new master using the most up to date technology and don't overdo the digital tools and change the colours and i guarantee 99.9% of people will be happy. Obviously in the case of this film they cannot scan at 4K that and thats true of digitally shot 2K films too but you know my meaning and for older films or 35mm shot modern movies the minimum should be 4K scans and minimal digital tinkering. 

Not going over board with the digital tools is far to late for these films as they went way over board on the original theatrical release in my opinion. Far too many attempts to create shadows where none existed in the original photography. Whole segments of the films that go all but monochrome. Except for the scenes at the start of the first film, they are really not what I would call pretty films. So much digital manipulation that they just look like mud.Doug

 

I consider the EE to be alternate versions anyway. Now, if the next release of the TE are changed as well, then I'll comment more. I would like to know if this was director approved, though.

 

[Jarod M]

After several more first hand accounts, it looks like the questions about a defective release are no longer being considered, and are now replaced with discussions on how to remove the Matrix effect.

This is unfortunate.

 

[David Weicker]

I've looked at several of the screen grabs. I admit they look different than the prior Blu-Ray release, but to my eye, they look better. Neither is 'bad' - just different. No one here can tell how different they are from the original experience in the theater (see my prior post for my opinion on that). Also, as someone else said, your eyes adjust to the color scheme over time. If the entire movie has been adjusted, then these scenes won't seem jarring - they will fit. If Peter Jackson likes this version, then great. I know I will, come the 26th when my order arrives.

Even so, when I watch a movie, I watch the movie, I don't freeze individual frames. That is completely foreign to what I consider a correct movie going experience (and violates what the creative team, IMHO, intended). When Janet Leigh steps into the shower, I'm not counting the specks of grain on the curtain - I'm watching the knife.

David

 

[Vincent_P]

Actually there was quite a bit of controversy regarding the look of THE GODFATHER films on Blu-ray. There's one guy in particular who is a regular poster over at the AVS Forums who suggested that the only reason Gordon Willis approved the Blu-rays was because Willis was paid to do so, and as far a I know said active AVS Forum poster has never retracted that claim nor been challenged on it by anybody other than me.

Vincent

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
...
The Godfather films

No controversy.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm with David W on this one. With that new set of screengrabs there is no question that there are different color temperatures used. But I am hesitant to say one is wrong and one is right. One was first and one was second, and often the second gets compared to the first with the assumption that the second is the wrong one.
However let's all recall that there were many complaints about the first Blu-ray of FOTR. So it's not like we're comparing a second release to a pristine, universally praised original transfer. Suddenly, what was a highly criticized transfer is now being considered canonical? Or will someone argue that despite the poor quality transfer of the FOTR TE BD, that they at least got the color perfect?

Looking at images f21 and f22 from that list, I see purplish tinting in the sky and the clouds. To my eyes the sky I see above me during the day looks more like f22 (EE) than f21 (TE). I can definitely see when compared side by side, one does look "greener" than the other, but I wouldn't consider the EE caps I've seen anywhere near The Matrix. Looking at f15 and f16, I don't see f16 as a "greener" version of f15. In fact, judging on its own merits, an argument could be made that f15(TE) is "too yellow" in comparison to f16(EE) which looks more natural. And f13 could be argued is an oversaturated version of f14. Neither of the last two examples is a "greener" version of the TE - just a different color grading. It's all in the way people want to perceive is the "correct" one. And as with David, the EE's color grading looks better to me than the TE.

 

[Mark Booth]

Comments by Matt Stevens, a highly reputable member over on AVS Forum:

Saw this tonight on a 120 inch screen. It is ugly. Green green green. They are in the fricking Matrix. This is not what the films looked like. We compared this BD to a 35mm trailer. Yes, an actual 35mm trailer projected on the same screen.
Hollywood has gone insane with this teal and green garbage. It's like they HAVE to alter their work after the fact. Greedo didn't shoot first.
So no more DNR. No more filtering. But contrast boosted and so green that the snow isn't white and skies are no blue.
And for some reason, TTT and RotK do not suffer such revisionism.
Why oh why did the first film have to be the one they screwed up? My favorite of the three, easily. This is just depressing. The disappointments never end with Blu-Ray.

Here is the message I quoted: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20579969#post20579969

Mark

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Mark Booth
Comments by Matt Stevens, a highly reputable member over on AVS Forum:


Here is the message I quoted: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20579969#post20579969

Mark

Yah, Matt has been known to overreact from time to time. ( not that i would dare say he is doing so here ) he has a point with all this revisionist colour timing changes going on with many films, it seems some directors just cannot resist tinkering with their original work and its not always for the better.

Take The Matrix, i always thought they should have made the sequels look like the original but for some reason they decide to alter the originals look and its now ugly as hell.

 

[Josh Dial]

Sadly, the state of the industry, by which I mean reviewers and fans and film-makers and studios alike, is such that the only opinion I can trust is my own. I now have to wait until the discs are in my hands before deciding to buy.

 

[Mark Booth]

Ken Brown has posted his EXTENSIVE review of the entire LOTR EE Boxed Set over at Blu-ray.com:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-Blu-ray/12237/#Review

He spends an exceptional amount of time sharing his thoughts regarding the FOTR color timing controversy.

Mark