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

[Mark-P]

By any chance is the credit fade color of Return of the King blue? If so they would match the original packaging concepts of the DVD box sets - green, brown and blue!

Now here is the important bit. Put in the Two Towers disc and it does the same thing, except this time the credit fade colour is brown instead of green, i.e. the colouring is deliberate and deliberately different between both transfers.

 

[Amillennialist]

By any chance is the credit fade color of Return of the King blue? If so they would match the original packaging concepts of the DVD box sets - green, brown and blue!

Hey! I pointed out a while back that according to the screencaps at blubrew, FotR EE is greener and TTT EE is bluer, which led me to suggest facetiously that PJ was trying to match the DVD boxes!

 

[Dave H]

I watched about the first hour and ten minutes of FOTR last night. I plan on finishing it tonight.
My display is a fairly recently ISF calibrated (by ChadB) 60" SXRD LCoS A3000 using an Oppo BDP-983 Blu-ray player with Source Direct (pure, untouched 1080p/24 signal). I am viewing in a dark environment.
First of all, let me just say the green/teal screenshots look NOTHING like what I am seeing on my display....nothing of the sort. I don't care what anyone says or claims, but these screenshots are not representative with what I am seeing on my display at all!
I also have the theatrical versions on BD and compared both versions at certain spots particularly taking a look at the shot with the four hobbits and snow, as well as the sky with Gandolph riding to see Sauroman (sp?). Tonight I'll take a look at the shot with the ring in the snow.
In comparisons, the whites in the EE have been toned down to more of an off-white or "egg shell" white versus the theatrical version where the whites are overly-bright and blown out in many scenes. The EE gives a much more natural look.
The new color grading/timing adds more to the movie in terms of tone, mood, and overall atmosphere. Looking at the theatrical version in many scenes it's almost like something is "incomplete" in the film in comparison to the EE now.
I'll post additional thoughts after I finish watching the entire movie, but this is an OUTSTANDING release. The contrast, blacks, and shadow detail are gorgeous. The image overall looks very film-like and natural. I am extremely pleased so far with what I have seen and I am beginning to suspect this is largely a (proper) calibration issue for a lot of folks.

Well, I finally ended up watching the remainder of the movie the other night and still stick with my original impressions. I was very impressed with the entire disc. I'm also happy with the new color changes and nothing stood out as a distraction to me. Looking forward to Two Towers next!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Geez - this argument still rages? What's left to say?

Seems like it's turned into 99% of the people saying "looks great" and two or three people endlessly trying to convince the others that they're wrong...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson
Geez - this argument still rages? What's left to say?

Seems like it's turned into 99% of the people saying "looks great" and two or three people endlessly trying to convince the others that they're wrong...

The argument will never cease with some because it's a legitimate issue with them. For the rest of us, it's not an issue so there is little or no argument as we continue to enjoy this BRD release.








Crawdaddy

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson
Geez - this argument still rages? What's left to say?

Seems like it's turned into 99% of the people saying "looks great" and two or three people endlessly trying to convince the others that they're wrong...

I did try to move people onto the animal cruelty debate but it seems people care even less about that subject.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
I did try to move people onto the animal cruelty debate but it seems people care even less about that subject.

I admire your attempt!

 

[David Weicker]

I did try to move people onto the animal cruelty debate but it seems people care even less about that subject.

I think what kept us off that topic was the disclaimer "No Wargs, Dragons, or Oliphants were harmed during the making of this movie"David

 

[Douglas Monce]

I did try to move people onto the animal cruelty debate but it seems people care even less about that subject.

Animals are often cruel to me!Doug

 

[montrealfilmguy]

As you all know,
We can't hug EVERY cat !
But we CAN hug ALL the Balrogs we want !!

 

[Merrick Gearing]

Just remember Star Wars is two months away.

I hope the mods are ready to work overtime for that!!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Merrick Gearing
Just remember Star Wars is two months away.

I hope the mods are ready to work overtime for that!!

Then there will be the Jurassic Park thread where people moan about the CGI in the original and how it doesn't stand up to scrutiny on blu ray, thats despite the fact it worked just fine at the cinema.

 

[Merrick Gearing]

That won't be fixed since Spielberg has now gone on record saying that he will not be doing anymore tinkering with his films. I can't argue with that approach. I wish Spielberg would allow for his deleted scenes to be viewed. Not enough of his films have those.

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
Then there will be the Jurassic Park thread where people moan about the CGI in the original and how it doesn't stand up to scrutiny on blu ray, thats despite the fact it worked just fine at the cinema.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Merrick Gearing
That won't be fixed since Spielberg has now gone on record saying that he will not be doing anymore tinkering with his films. I can't argue with that approach. I wish Spielberg would allow for his deleted scenes to be viewed. Not enough of his films have those.

In my opinion there is nothing to fix, its state of the art for 1993 and in my opinion still looks good today, i was just laughing at the people who say the CGI doesn't work because HD makes it look ropey, point being it didn't look ropey in the cinema where i saw it three times.

 

[Merrick Gearing]

I have no idea, but I just wish Spielberg would start putting deleted scenes from his films on the blurays when they come out. It has been that way for some of his films but not all.

I have never been a fan of overused CGI and I prefer oldschool models.

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

In my opinion there is nothing to fix, its state of the art for 1993 and in my opinion still looks good today, i was just laughing at the people who say the CGI doesn't work because HD makes it look ropey, point being it didn't look ropey in the cinema where i saw it three times.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Merrick Gearing
I have no idea, but I just wish Spielberg would start putting deleted scenes from his films on the blurays when they come out. It has been that way for some of his films but not all.

I have never been a fan of overused CGI and I prefer oldschool models.

I agree with your sentiments on the overuse of CGI. I don't think Jurassic Park overused it, now something like G.I Joe, maybe or even Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull which i felt was lacking in atmosphere perhaps due to overuse of green screens and not enough location shooting, mind you the script didn't help, i say that as a fan of the first three films and Raiders is my all time favourite film.

I also agree regarding deleted scenes, i imagine the Star Wars boxset when it hits could have a whole disc devoted to deleted scenes but will likely have none of the scenes everyone knows exists such as the attack by the snow creatures on the rebel base in Empire or Yoda dancing to the music from Saturday Night Fever.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
In my opinion there is nothing to fix, its state of the art for 1993 and in my opinion still looks good today, i was just laughing at the people who say the CGI doesn't work because HD makes it look ropey, point being it didn't look ropey in the cinema where i saw it three times.

Those kinds of issues don't generally bother me either unless it's a matter of seeing them for the first time in a long time again as an adult w/ far different sensibilities than when I originally saw them as a kid or something, eg. Star Trek TOS (though I never had much opp to catch that as a kid), Ray Harryhausen effects to some extent. In some cases, the newly noticed ropey-ness just draws a smile or chuckle, and I learn to appreciate and enjoy them in different light instead.

Actually, I find that I'm generally more distracted/bothered by CG effects that try (and typically fall short) to replicate real life (or real-life-like) imagery than those that try to conjure up the fantastical and/or very rarely seen images. Replication of real life imagery need to combat w/ our (many years of) experiences and sensibilities while the fantastical stuff won't have the same kinds of reference points that can break our suspension of disbelief -- and adding substantially more years of experiences can certainly change one's sensibilities, etc. too.

Still, since most of what we actually saw on film projected screens were probably lower res (both in real res and apparent/perceptual quality) than what BD on a well set-up modern HT display can offer, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that something that looked fine years ago in the cinema might seem a tad jarring on a fully resolving BD today. If people could easily see the wires holding up the Cowardly Lion's tail in the Wizard of Oz (among other tricks) back in the day, it probably would've been a distraction to them too -- or maybe not if they were actually used to that in the cinemas back then. It can really depend me thinks (and probably even applies to the FotR color controversy to some extent )...

_Man_

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool



Still, since most of what we actually saw on film projected screens were probably lower res (both in real res and apparent/perceptual quality) than what BD on a well set-up modern HT display can offer, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that something that looked fine years ago in the cinema might seem a tad jarring on a fully resolving BD today. If people could easily see the wires holding up the Cowardly Lion's tail in the Wizard of Oz (among other tricks) back in the day, it probably would've been a distraction to them too -- or maybe not if they were actually used to that in the cinemas back then. It can really depend me thinks (and probably even applies to the FotR color controversy to some extent )...

_Man_

What you say is true but Spielberg probably viewed this at the ranch with George Lucas and their cinema viewing experience is going to be radically different, i doubt they would be getting 720p detail levels the way the average cinemagoers did before digital cinema projectors came out. They were happy with it back then and i seriously doubt blu ray is going to suddenly make the dinosaurs look bad now, of course some people will complain about it anyways.

With regard to The Wizard Of Oz, i personally think they could see it back in the day but having said that Warner is using new technology and many older films are being seen sharper than when originally projected, there is a great extra about this on the Gone With The Wind blu ray release.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

The same way our minds know and feel we're looking at CG instead of let's say models, i think if you look at the lion's tail wagging about
in Oz,your brain tells you there's a sort of tugging going on and you think rope.Even in 1938.
Actually even more so than now,because they were at the beginning of movies,so the question on how the filmmakers did their magic
must've been popping up a lot more in their minds.
Now there's not one tv special,not one dvd extra,not one behind the scenes telling you in details how they do it so part of the
magic and the awe of it is pretty much nonexistant.

 

[David Weicker]

The same way our minds know and feel we're looking at CG instead of let's say models, i think if you look at the lion's tail wagging about
in Oz,your brain tells you there's a sort of tugging going on and you think rope.Even in 1938.
Actually even more so than now,because they were at the beginning of movies,so the question on how the filmmakers did their magic
must've been popping up a lot more in their minds.
Now there's not one tv special,not one dvd extra,not one behind the scenes telling you in details how they do it so part of the
magic and the awe of it is pretty much nonexistant.

There was a great segment on David Letterman years ago where he cracked an egg into a bowl. Then Mark Hamill came on to show how it was really done - the hours spent building a realistic looking hand, more hours spent making several egg models (broken and unbroken), various substance tests to determine what they could use to simulate a yolk-y appearance. And then the green screen using the hand and the egg model with motion-capture cameras.
David