Is the LOTR Blu-Ray due sooner than we think? (1 Viewer)

[Ryan-G]

Let's be honest here.

What exactly is this "Ultimate box set" going to include that's worth the expense? I mean, they're not going to add still more footage, the movies are already incredibly long. It's going to include everything it had before, and maybe a few other extras. Perhaps another set of bookends.

Of course, it'll be followed up in 5 years(from now) by the "Ultimate Ultimate box set" that'll have the hobbit packed in. Which will probably be followed by the "EE Hobbit Ultimat Ultimate Ultimate Box Set" the following year for the next movie, the "Ultimate ^4 box set" that christams, and the "Ultimate ^ 5 EE all 5 movies box set" 6 months after that. Seriously, it's out of hand.

In short, unlike last time, there's no real tangible reason for the wait other than the studio wants to have a tie-in. So, IMO, this is a double-dip. It's not being witheld in order to add more material to the films, it's being witheld for money, and to be very blunt, odds are good few of the people who buy it will actually watch the new extras anyways.

I really don't see the medium being any different in 2 years either. The resolution isn't going to change, the sound formats aren't going to change, nor is the compression codec going to change. It'll be the same medium in 2 years it is today.

As far as "They are coming", 2 years from now. 2011. IMO, it's irrelevant, until 2011 they *aren't* coming for me, 'cause they're so far off it's pointless to consider them as coming.

So yeah, the whole thing ticks me off. Enough that, combined with the other things with this whole format, I won't buy into a new format again until it's established. Honestly, if a studio wants my buisness, trying to double-dip isn't a good way to get it.

 

[Todd smith]

Thanks, great post

 

[Lew Crippen]

Of course there is the other side of business greed. Maximizing shareholder profit. Something corporations are obliged to do.

 

[Todd smith]

As I said, I understand it from a business perspective, but that does not make it right and does not mean people cant be upset about it IMO. Just my opinion.

 

[Ricardo C]

And it all comes back down to impatience. They aren't releasing what you want, when you want it. The end.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I do not understand how you can call New Line's release schedule "unethical", Todd. The studio has outlined how they will be releasing the films on Blu-ray -- there are no hidden secrets or attempts to deceive the customer. You may not like the release schedule, but that does not make it unethical.

If the studio announced that they would only be releasing the theatrical editions on BD and would never release the extended editions, and then a few months after the TE's were released, the studio announced that the EE's would be coming out on BD -- that would be unethical.

 

[Carlo_M]

Examine #1. Who is in charge of judging NL's strategy is "right or wrong"? You don't like it so to you it's wrong. I (and others) see nothing wrong with it. Would I like to have the EEs right now? Sure. And as Austin Powers said "I want a toilet made of solid gold but that's not in the cards now, is it?"

Let's look at #2. The standards of a profession. Not only is NL's strategy in line with what is happening in the profession, it's actually miles better! Most don't even warn you of an impending re-release (thank you Sony and Casino Royale BD). NL has gone out of its way to let you know ahead of time. So by definition #2, not only is NL ethical, but it exceeds the standard conduct of the profession.

 

[Mark-W]

Excellent points, very well stated.

I would go farther and state that releasing the EE versions in a uber boxed at a date to coincide with the release of "The Hobbit" theatrical release is the
most advantageous business model, and we fans will just have to "suffer" (How will we survive?!?!?) with our horrible, low quality DVDs until
the Blu-rays arrive in stores, probably along with a Burger King glass
promotional tie-in.

Even with all of that, I bet we see the EEs of LOTR on Blu before we see
the Star Wars Trilogies on Blu-ray, and we will never see the TE cuts of
those released on high-def because, per Lucasfilm, "They don't exist anymore."

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Hmmm... Where were you again when some of us complained that the TDK BD didn't come w/ the constant-AR, non-pseudo-IMAX version? But now, you're so very vocal about this?

And I agree w/ the others that there's nothing unethical about New Line's approach to this release -- and yes, I do want to see the EE versions released (and actually would also prefer PJ improve upon the EEs some more).

_Man_

 

[Todd smith]

The way I perceive what they are doing to me is unethical (which I have allready explained), and its not the release schedule. You guys have a dif perception of it which is fine. I stand by my opinions and in the end they are just one opinion.....I respect everyones stance on this even if we dont all agree, but again I do stand by my comments since this is how I feel.

 

[Todd smith]

I am allowed to have an opinion on NL's "strategy" (interesting choice of words) just like you are. Me (and others) do see what is being done as wrong. You dont agree and I respect that. We will just have to agree to disagree like I have said. Perception is everything and there is obviously a perception conflict since one side sees it one way and one side the other. Doesnt mean I am right and you are wrong or the other way around, just a dif of perception.

 

[Roger_R]

If you fill a BD50 with Return of the King EE (no menu or anything like that), it'd have an average bitrate of 25.2 Mbit/s. Take away about 6-7 Mbit for various soundtracks and you're left with about 18Mbit/s for video. A bit on the low side, I think.

King Kong EE is about 50 mins shorter and would get an average bitrate of about 31.6 Mbit/s. Obviously, in both cases, the actual numbers are lower because of the menus and other stuff they fill the discs with.

 

[cafink]

They are not doing anything to you. You don't have to buy anything from them that you don't want to.

 

[Todd smith]

Good information Roger and I agree that is a bit on the low side. Seamless branching would definately not be ideal then considering this info since you would probably want to break up the EE over 2 discs which would be a compromise for the TE.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Well, seems like someone else beat me to that. So who brought some tar and feather?

_Man_

 

[Brian Borst]

Too bad the EE isn't Jackson's preferred version, that would be the TC. He said that many times. That's also why it isn't called a Director's Cut.
The extended versions are for the fans who want to see more material derived from the books.

 

[Todd smith]

There was a article linked over on HDD which has PJ talking about watching the EEs just recently again and commenting on how much they fill out and enhance the films. Maybe his opinion has changed

Either way, this is very dif from the Dark Knight issue in the fact that the constant aspect ration version of the Dark Knight was compromised during the IMAX scenes and Nolan has made it VERY clear that the variable aspect ration version is the way the film is meant to be seen......I have never read anything that definitive from Jackson considering the LOTRs which the latest article supports as well.

 

[Todd smith]

Hold back on that tar and feather My only point was that I said I bet it COULD be done which assuming that post was accurate proves it could. While not ideal, it could still be done and if HD-DVD is any indication (as well as other various BRs that have looked amazing with low rates), these still have the potential to look stellar.

Take that tar and feather somewhere else buddy!

 

[Mark-W]

I think the EE cuts are the "comfort of ones own couch editions," and the TE are the "sitting in a crowded theater without a pause button editions."

That seems to be the way Jackson characterizes them when I have
heard him explain why he loves both versions.

 

[Ricardo C]

How many times does he have to say that the Extended Editions are NOT "director's cuts" but merely "different" cuts?