WHV Press Release: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

First of all, Mr. Kliest is not a Warner/LOTR representative, so the validity of his information/source can be called into question.

What incentive does he have to lie?

Second, he stated that new masters were created, not that he was specifically told that these Blu-ray discs were all sourced from new masters.

True. But why make new masters if you aren't gonna use them?

This seems really odd to me. It's not like this was ever a low budget production-originally set at $300 million, I believe, with money being saved by shooting in New Zealand. I understand how effects shots/rough environmental conditions could lead to a softer picture in certain scenes. But could the "new tools vs. old tools theory" really explain what is going on here? Or are there other reasons that play a more significant role?

I'm not an expert in this regard, but Penton seems to think it could make a significant difference, and he is an expert. He's trustworthy, so I believe him when he says it could make a difference. I think it's possible Mr. Harris will elaborate, but that's purely my own conjecture.

They might technically be different films, but it is just one story. This difference poses an interesting question, regardless of the discontent for the Blu-ray releases. Maybe it was a stylistic choice for the flashback to look different. Or maybe they goofed.

One story means nothing. The original theatrical presentations were a year apart, and the TTT was still being worked on when FOTR was released. I'd put the odds in favor of it being intentional.

You act like promotional interviews by studio employees and talent are never done. But if the studios prefer such secrecy, I don't see how they can complain about the resulting Internet speculation about alleged issues with their product. Do we have to wait for an entity like the New York Times to do a story on the matter?

They're done, but usually tied to marketing, not to answering gripes. Even with programs where replacement discs are made available you rarely get the studios trumpeting it to the masses. Usually it's small, silent, and for those who happen to be "in the know". And I don't hear the studios complaining, at least publicly. As far as an expose from the NYT.... it wouldn't sell near enough papers.

 

[rich_d]

Thanks for the link. Of course, it's nonsense. The data cited is for the second week (and only the second week) of the EE's release. Newsflash for Dougy - Brick and Mortar's DON"T have the EE on sale the second week of release. All it takes is a price reduction on the TE or Wal-Mart (40 percent of all U.S. sales) to have the TE on promo that week and it looks like it's made some big comeback when it's just a deal or promo.

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Rich, the sales data Doug references can be found in Jesse Blacklow's post here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/298921/lotr-bluray-extended-cut/0#post_3671501

 

[rich_d]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




You clearly have no ability to carry on a civil conversation. Enjoy talking to yourself.

Doug

What? You're not going to write something back like ... 'you're right, I misread what you wrote and on top of that I feel like a turkey for telling you that you should read better when it's really me that should read better.'

Last I checked, civil conversations go out the window when someone tells another they should read posts better. But, maybe that's just me.

 

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

"True. But why make new masters if you aren't gonna use them?"

Perhaps new masters were actually created for the Extended Editions.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Perhaps new masters were actually created for the Extended Editions.

Doubtful.

 

[Ron-P]

I swore up and down I was going to pass and hold out for the EE's, well, that's not going to happen. At $64 it's just too hard to pass up. I love these films. Heck, my theater is decorated with most of the swords from these films.

Looking very forward to these...and yes, I'll buy the EE's when they street as well.

 

I pre-ordered these as well. Someone on another board is saying that these transfers are from 2002! I hope I won't be too disappointed.

 

[Mark_TB]

I found an incredible deal on this at the WBshop. After signing in to the site to get my WB Insiders discount, I decided to see what price would show up if I tried ordering this. When I placed it in my cart, it showed a price of $61.95 (not the $69.95 shown on the product page), PLUS it applied my 25% WB Insider discount, for a grand total of only $46.46!

Emboldened, I tried adding the Bakshi version of LOTR, and it came up at only $14.21, so I quickly ordered both items for a total of only $60.67, which also qualified me for free shipping!

Sadly, the WB Insider discount is no longer being applied to the Bakshi disc (it now comes up at $18.95), but the Trilogy box is still showing at $46.46. I can't imagine finding a better deal, so I would suggest taking advantage of this while it lasts.

- Mark

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

I pre-ordered these as well. Someone on another board is saying that these transfers are from 2002! I hope I won't be too disappointed.

The only facts about the transfer we have right now are that 1) it was approved by Peter Jackson, 2) Jeff Kliest from TDB says he was informed by a Warner employee about a year ago that they had done it at least five times in preparing this release, and 3) the Blu-ray of FOTR looks a bit over processed with DNR-like (but not necessarily DNR since it could be multiple factors) manipulation, and matches up similarly to the HD broadcast. Everything else online at the moment is complete speculation, and I suspect will stay as much until someone at WB reveals more, or someone like Robert Harris makes comments with input from people at WB.

 

From what I read, the HD broadcast looked better with more grain and detail. But, I'm no expert on screenshots.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Mark_TB

Sadly, the WB Insider discount is no longer being applied to the Bakshi disc (it now comes up at $18.95), but the Trilogy box is still showing at $46.46. I can't imagine finding a better deal, so I would suggest taking advantage of this while it lasts.

That would certainly be very tempting, but the recent controversy about mediocre PQ gives me pause to jump on it. And mediocre PQ would certainly not be a first for a Warner release, especially one originally belonging to New Line. I would consider jumping on it anyway if no forseeable future rerelease is imminent. But as it is, this is just the theatrical version only -- even though I don't necessarily feel it inferior to the EE (like some do) -- so ...

_Man_

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

From what I read, the HD broadcast looked better with more grain and detail. But, I'm no expert on screenshots.

If the HD broadcast has, say, a 8/10 for detail, then IMO the Blu-ray has 7.9/10. But that's just me.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Thanks for the heads up as I bought this boxset from WB and also Sherlock Holmes for 19.95 and The Music Man for 14.37 plus 6% sales tax.





Crawdaddy

 

[Jarod M]

First of all, Mr. Kliest is not a Warner/LOTR representative, so the validity of his information/source can be called into question.

What incentive does he have to lie?

I never said that he, or anyone else for that matter, lied. But when you are dealing with hearsay from an unnamed source in addition to a lack of specificity of information, misunderstandings often arise.

Second, he stated that new masters were created, not that he was specifically told that these Blu-ray discs were all sourced from new masters.

True. But why make new masters if you aren't gonna use them?

Your definition of "master" might differ from Mr. Klein's definition of master, which both might be entirely different from the source's definition of a master.

You act like promotional interviews by studio employees and talent are never done. But if the studios prefer such secrecy, I don't see how they can complain about the resulting Internet speculation about alleged issues with their product. Do we have to wait for an entity like the New York Times to do a story on the matter?

They're done, but usually tied to marketing, not to answering gripes. Even with programs where replacement discs are made available you rarely get the studios trumpeting it to the masses. Usually it's small, silent, and for those who happen to be "in the know". And I don't hear the studios complaining, at least publicly. As far as an expose from the NYT.... it wouldn't sell near enough papers.

Warner has made a mistake here, in my opinion. Let's assume Warner did the best job it could on these releases, but knew that they were still problematic. Why not do one measly interview before the review discs were issued, describing the issues they faced and the limitations of the source material that could not be overcome. Now that the cat is out of the bag, that interview could still save those potential lost sales. People will happily buy these releases as long as they know that Warner did everything they could do, and is not just foisting inferior product with the idea that they will save the better effort for a future release.

If Warner remains silent on this issue, then they have no one to blame but themselves if people assume the worst. How many sales will this cost them? They are already losing out on sales from people who only want the extended editions. We'll of course never know what effect these negative reviews are having. They could still sell a couple million of these. But again, why risk losing sales when you have nothing to lose by doing that interview?

Or maybe Warner can't do that interview, because they know they are releasing inferior product.

 

[Brandon Conway]

You vastly overestimate the reach of home theater enthusiasts on the internet. Their lost sales are the proverbial drop in the bucket.

Besides, the street date for this release is still 10 days away. Who's to say that Warner won't do such an interview/statement? If they were to do one, they would certainly time it for a few days before the actual street date, not 2-3 weeks before.

 

[Simon Massey]

Just finished watching them all. Its been a while since I have seen them and its nice to see how well they still hold up even though I do prefer the extended version.

Seems to be a lot of issues with the transfer from what I have read. All i can say is that they were neither terrible nor the best I have seen either. FOTR is the weakest transfer but it is not terrible. Nor does it leap off the screen the same way that some of the best hi-def releases can. I didnt really notice any smearing or problems in any shots. (Someone had released a terrible screencap of the opening battle sequence and I never noticed that at all when in motion) Colour was definitely improved - the greens of Hobbiton were much bolder than I have seen before.

There were definitely better than the DVDs for me. One of the problems though is I did start noticing a lot more practical effects for the hobbits and dwarves etc (e.g. the dummy Pippin that Gandalf is carring on his horse through most of Minas Tirith). Guess thats what hi def can do too.

It will keep me going until the Extended versions are released.

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

You vastly overestimate the reach of home theater enthusiasts on the internet. Their lost sales are the proverbial drop in the bucket.

Besides, the street date for this release is still 10 days away. Who's to say that Warner won't do such an interview/statement? If they were to do one, they would certainly time it for a few days before the actual street date, not 2-3 weeks before.

Home theater enthusiasts are the only reason Blu-ray exists. People were perfectly happy with DVD. You can't say what the loss is from this, nor can Warner. A lot of businesses have suffered over the years by not paying attention to the vocal customers because they believed they represented "the proverbial drop in the bucket." If you're right, then why not release whatever crap transfer they have on hand for every movie. Satisfying those with 50" or less televisions who watch from 15 feet away should be good enough, because the rest of the people are "a drop in the bucket." In fact, why not eradicate the grain from every movie too while their at it, because the only people who care about preserving grain are "a drop in the bucket."

 

[Jarod M]

Simon-
Could you provide your screen size and viewing distance? Thanks.

 

[Vincent_P]

I'd argue that "home theater enthusiasts" helped get us better Blu-rays of THE FIFTH ELEMENT and GANGS OF NEW YORK after their widely disparaged initial versions.

Vincent

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

You vastly overestimate the reach of home theater enthusiasts on the internet. Their lost sales are the proverbial drop in the bucket.

 

[CraigF]

^ Very probably. Did it help those who bought the original versions though? Just asking. Otherwise could have been just another in the multiple-dip marketing cycle.