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.
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.