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

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Bryan^H

"Excessive DNR" (however frequent or infrequent) through the films is unacceptable to me. The video should match the stellar audio.

Complete conspiracy theory taking over, but do you think this was done on purpose? Could the extended editions(which should have branching video to watch either theatrical or extended) be DNR free hence forcing a double dip for those who just wanted the theatrical version and jumped the gun with this release?

If it's unacceptable to you then that's fine with me. No, I don't believe in that other stuff because most people that buy this BRD boxset won't even be aware of this issue and will enjoy these discs just fine.

On to Two Towers for now.





Crawdaddy

 

[Flemming.K]

Regarding the DVD/BD shot, I'm not talking about "everywhere else" on the DVD image i linked to, because the hair are more detailed and sharp. I'm only talking about the skin and the background (where filmgrain has been drained from the image, thus removing details) and I do absolutely feel, the skin on the DVD retains the details of Gandalf face (the small dark spots), while the BD has blurred out the skin details and in the process, thrown in a couple of reddish tones.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Thanks for the mini-review, Robert. While I was not planning on purchasing this set anyway, I do feel more comfortable renting them after reading your comments.

I certainly do not begrudge the studio in releasing just the theatrical cuts first, even though this is not my preferred version with these particular films. I have been disappointed in the past when studios have released only a "director's cut" of a film where I prefer the theatrical version -- Amadeus and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly are two off the top of my head. Additional scenes do not always make for a better film. There must be many folks out there who prefer the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy, and these are the versions that were honored with all those Academy Awards.

I used to own the theatrical cuts on SD-DVD, and found I never watched them once the extended editions were released. Since I usually watch the trilogy only once a year, I can get a BD fix by renting the theatrical versions now and waiting for the extended editions later. If I feel a deep desire to see the extended cuts now, those versions still sit on my self in SD-DVD format... and still look very good, IMO.

 

[Jarod M]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

(And keep in mind that Warner didn't necessarily make billions on these films. Those billions have essentially been squandered by a series of flops released by New Line before Warner shut them down as being an independent studio.)

What evidence are you basing this on? Even The Golden Compass wasn't really that much of a flop, and it probably made money by the time all the home video revenue was included. Most of the other New Line releases were budgeted low enough to keep losses at a minimum.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I won't be able to finish "The Two Towers" this morning as I'm going out, but so far, it's much better than the first film video-wise with the DNR less of a problem. Later today, I'll finish the last 90 minutes of this disc and then try to do some SD DVD comparisons because I think some incorrect information is being posted here about the flesh tones on the SD DVD looking better than the BRD.

Also, I think "The Two Towers" is my favorite of the three films.




Crawdaddy

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Originally Posted by Flemming.K

Regarding the DVD/BD shot, I'm not talking about "everywhere else" on the DVD image i linked to, because the hair are more detailed and sharp.

Nor was I. I specifically mentioned the skin and background.

I'm only talking about the skin and the background (where filmgrain has been drained from the image, thus removing details)

And I can very clearly see grain in the background. That's what all those little dots are, which are nothing more than blocks on the DVD.

and I do absolutely feel, the skin on the DVD retains the details of Gandalf face (the small dark spots), while the BD has blurred out the skin details and in the process, thrown in a couple of reddish tones.

Look, you obviously seem to believe that the DVD had an above-par image, when the opposite has been proven for years now. It also seems that you confuse MPEG artifacts with grain and detail, because I'm looking at the same image, and I'm not seeing what you claim is detail. I see McKellan's age spots/darker pores on his upper nose and forehead, which are completely absent on the DVD. There's also I can also see his individual eyelashes, for instance, whereas the DVD merely has a faint blob. What I do see in the DVD is blocks in the background which are almost entirely uniform size, which is a feature of MPEG blocking, not film grain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarod M

What evidence are you basing this on? Even The Golden Compass wasn't really that much of a flop, and it probably made money by the time all the home video revenue was included.

Which isn't really correct, at least as it stands with New Line. The movie was made for $180m but--and here's the kicker--they sold the international theatrical rights to other studios. So while the movie made $370m+, only $70m went to New Line. I can't think that you believe losing over $100m on domestic revenue and giving up $300m in overseas revenue isn't an enormous flop by any definition.

Most of the other New Line releases were budgeted low enough to keep losses at a minimum.

Obviously not, or else it would have been able to save them or at least delay the takeover.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Flemming.K

Regarding the DVD/BD shot, I'm not talking about "everywhere else" on the DVD image i linked to, because the hair are more detailed and sharp. I'm only talking about the skin and the background (where filmgrain has been drained from the image, thus removing details) and I do absolutely feel, the skin on the DVD retains the details of Gandalf face (the small dark spots), while the BD has blurred out the skin details and in the process, thrown in a couple of reddish tones.

Looks like blatant video noise on the DVD in the background and on his face to me. Especially in the background to the left.

 

[Jarod M]

Quote:Which isn't really correct, at least as it stands with New Line. The movie was made for $180m but--and here's the kicker--they sold the international theatrical rights to other studios. So while the movie made $370m+, only $70m went to New Line. I can't think that you believe losing over $100m on domestic revenue and giving up $300m in overseas revenue isn't an enormous flop by any definition.
Obviously not, or else it would have been able to save them or at least delay the takeover.

So New Line sold the international rights for nothing? Where did you read that? The same place you read that the $180m was solely financed by New Line? It it well known that most effects laden movies can and often do make the lionshare of their gross in foreign markets. Instead of continuing to allow the New Line foreign distribution deals to continue, Warner wanted to take over that foreign distribution.
You still haven't defended your claim that billions were squandered.

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Then prepare to be disappointed. From everything I've read those that have their bar this high will be upset. The appears to be that FOTR needs a new DI to look any better, and the simple truth is that Warner isn't investing the few million dollars or so it would take to do that right now.

(And keep in mind that Warner didn't necessarily make billions on these films. Those billions have essentially been squandered by a series of flops released by New Line before Warner shut them down as being an independent studio.)

Couch it whatever terms you wish. The simple truth is that if this release is less than stellar, then IMO everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. Period.

 

[Andrew Pierce]

(And keep in mind that Warner didn't necessarily make billions on these films. Those billions have essentially been squandered by a series of flops released by New Line before Warner shut them down as being an independent studio.)

1. Warner didn't make billions
2. Those billions (the one they didn't make) have been squandered

I'm going to try this one on the IRS. I didn't pay taxes on that money I um didn't make because I lost al that money at the racetrack.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarod M

So New Line sold the international rights for nothing? Where did you read that? The same place you read that the $180m was solely financed by New Line?

You had me up to the point where I, y'know, never said that. But here's an article from the UK's Guardian that points out that "New Line sold the overseas rights to cover the production budget so when it went on to gross over $260m in other markets, that money was lost." Here's another from the LA Times that points out that New Line spent tens of millions more in advertising. Are you going to assume they're both tabloids as you imply above?

Quote:

It it well known that most effects laden movies can and often do make the lionshare of their gross in foreign markets. Instead of continuing to allow the New Line foreign distribution deals to continue, Warner wanted to take over that foreign distribution.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the funding, which I just pointed out, came from removing their rights to foreign distro.

You still haven't defended your claim that billions were squandered.

Maybe that's because I never made that claim.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by dpippel


Couch it whatever terms you wish. The simple truth is that if this release is less than stellar, then IMO everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. Period.

Then I guess the post-production editing crew in 2001 should be ashamed of their use of DNR-like digital tools under a tight budget / tight delivery deadline too, eh?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pierce



1. Warner didn't make billions
2. Those billions (the one they didn't make) have been squandered

I'm going to try this one on the IRS. I didn't pay taxes on that money I um didn't make because I lost al that money at the racetrack.

Let me repeat: Warner Bros. didn't make billions on this film. New Line Cinema made billions, and they no longer exist as an independent studio because of financial problems.

Your IRS analogy would be more apt if like this:

There are two brothers. One (Brother New Line) makes a product and sells it for billions of dollars. Then after faulty future investments its profits are now gone. Then he dies.

The other brother (Brother Warner) inherits the debt and the future sales of assets. Tell me, now, how this second brother made billions on this product before the first brother's death?

You might as well say Warner "made billions" on every pre-1986 MGM film prior to securing video distribution rights. While Warner Bros. Studios and New Line Studios shared a corporate parent (Time Warner), they were separate studios until 2008, and all profits for New Line Studios went untouched by Warner Bros. Studios, save perhaps some small distribution fees from time to time.

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Then I guess the post-production editing crew in 2001 should be ashamed of their use of DNR-like digital tools under a tight budget / tight delivery deadline too, eh?

How snarky. Of course nothing is ever going to look better than the original source material, but these films in particular should receive the very best treatment they can get for their Blu-ray debut. IMO that includes going back and redoing the DI if necessary. Are you really arguing against that? I'm reminded of the old engineering adage: "If you can't find the time and money to do it right the first time, how can you possibly find the time and money to do it over?"

The amount of apologist defending going on in here is pretty ironic. I'm still trying to maintain a "wait and see" attitude.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Multi-million dollar budgets to create new DI's for home video releases don't get approved easily. If the studios followed that adage of yours there might be 4-5 catalog releases a year. Maybe.

 

[PopCultureWhore]

My favorite movies of the decade by far!

I'll be in the buy both category, but will wait until the price comes down on this first set.

 

[dpippel]

Quote:Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Multi-million dollar budgets to create new DI's for home video releases don't get approved easily. If the studios followed that adage of yours there might be 4-5 catalog releases a year. Maybe.

We're not talking about some obscure catalog title Brandon. This is the Lord of the Rings trilogy for crying out loud.

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by dpippel

I'm still trying to maintain a "wait and see" attitude.

Setting your expectations that high seems pretty counter to a "wait and see" attitude to me.

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by Jason Charlton

Setting your expectations that high seems pretty counter to a "wait and see" attitude to me.

How does having high expectations negate a wait and see attitude exactly? I'm saying that I'll withhold my judgement until I've had a chance to experience the Blu-ray releases myself.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by dpippel


We're not talking about some obscure catalog title Brandon. This is the Lord of the Rings trilogy for crying out loud.

If I'm a CEO, and someone tells me the following, I know what I'm choosing:

Option 1) We can release the currently available HD masters that are less than a decade old, with some tweaking to present them in the best way possible on the format given limitations, and please 99.99% of the people who buy the product, for a budget of probably a few hundred thousand dollars, and with sales we'll be profitable with this release.

Option 2) We can spend, in addition to a few hundred thousand dollars, a few million dollars that *may* (because how do we know it would?) improve the video quality of 1 of the films, please 100% of the people who buy the product, and take far longer to be profitable with the release, if ever.

Now, from a business perspective the choice is obviously #1.

And we know from articles that Warner has spent $5-6 million on restorations of Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, A Star is Born, etc. in the last year or two, but what do these films have that are in common? They are all over 50 years old. So clearly Warner has some interest (and generally a much larger one than most other studios) at preserving older films that need it, and LOTR - as much as people love them - are not in that realm of *aged* prestige quite yet to get that type of non-profitable preservation budget.

Granted, this is merely my understanding of the variables involved having read statements from experts on the cost of such productions. I have no first hand knowledge of actual budgets here. But the scenario I outlined seems wholly plausible to me, and as I said, if I'm that CEO the choice is clear.