Pre-Order The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (4k UHD Steelbook) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

The UHD format does not support 48 fps. The format does support 60 fps (see Gemini Man), but the Hobbit films were only photographed in 48 fps and would need to have frame interpolation added to them to convert to 60.

Okay - thanks! There's been so little high frame-rate content on 4K that I wasn't aware of that technicality!

I knew there'd been the 2 Ang Lee 4Ks with HFR - didn't know that 60 fps worked but 48 fps didn't!

 

[Bryan^H]

Now if the "Hobbit" 4Ks used the 48 fps frame rate, that'd be different, but I saw nothing in the press release that indicated they would...

A failed experiment in the cinema. I don't think I could have watched it that way when released if I wanted to, as no theater promoted it within hundreds of miles from me. At this point it is almost like an urban legend, it was so rare. I don't know anyone that watched it in that format.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

A failed experiment in the cinema. I don't think I could have watched it that way when released if I wanted to, as no theater promoted it within hundreds of miles from me. At this point it is almost like an urban legend, it was so rare. I don't know anyone that watched it in that format.

The 48 fps "Hobbit"? I saw at least 1 of the 3 3D HFR - maybe even 2. Can't remember!

So it played that way at least at the Regal in Chandler AZ!

 

[Bryan^H]

The 48 fps "Hobbit"? I saw at least 1 of the 3 3D HFR - maybe even 2. Can't remember!

So it played that way at least at the Regal in Chandler AZ!

Was it promoted as such? That is what I mean-- even if it was played in theaters at 48 FPS, it certainly wasn't promoted at the theaters near me.
I remember checking every theater in nearly all of Michigan for the unique HFR. If it played that way, it certainly wasn't mentioned. I wanted to see it the away Peter Jackson suggested, but found it insanely difficult.

 

[TravisR]

The 48 fps "Hobbit"? I saw at least 1 of the 3 3D HFR - maybe even 2. Can't remember!

So it played that way at least at the Regal in Chandler AZ!

Unfortunately, I saw all three Hobbits in 3-D HFR and while the picture was incredibly detailed, it also looked like a soap opera. I'm glad that they can't repeat that mistake on disc.

 

[Bryan^H]

Unfortunately, I saw all three Hobbits in 3-D HFR and while the picture was incredibly detailed, it also looked like a soap opera. I'm glad that they can't repeat that mistake on disc.

Yikes, that is what I feared it would look like.
Glad I missed out.

 

[TravisR]

Yikes, that is what I feared it would look like.
Glad I missed out.

To be fair, the static shots were amazingly detailed which was great and probably what attracted Jackson in the first place but any time there was any movement of the camera or a person or object, it looked like a video game cut scene or a soap opera. As good as the detail was, it wasn't worth the trade off.

 

[PMF]

Topic for a book on filmmaking:

Peter Jackson, George Lucas, William Friedman and Francis Ford Coppola discussing the hows and whys in which their own creations of LOTR, Star Wars, The French Connection; and Apocalypse Now, The Cotton Club and Godfather III became works that held them in their own grips to where they were never satisfied.

And even now, are they truly at a creative peace and place in which each of their presentations and narratives are no longer ruling their days?

 

[Malcolm R]

Was it promoted as such? That is what I mean-- even if it was played in theaters at 48 FPS, it certainly wasn't promoted at the theaters near me.
I remember checking every theater in nearly all of Michigan for the unique HFR. If it played that way, it certainly wasn't mentioned. I wanted to see it the away Peter Jackson suggested, but found it insanely difficult.

HFR required special equipment to project, so if theaters didn't want to spend the money for the upgrades, then they couldn't show it in that format. Only one theater near me made the investment. I saw one of the Hobbit films in HFR and did not like it at all. It almost made me think I was watching a stage production rather than a film. Didn't work for me, expecially with The Hobbit which is supposed to be a fantasy world, not looking like real life.

To me it looked similar to the smoothing/processing offered on current HDTV's that many call the Soap Opera effect. I don't like that look, either.

 

[owen35]

Boy, those Steelbook releases got snapped up faster than a roll of toilet paper in a pandemic. Not sure how many they plan to make, but it's not enough. Sigh.

 

[Tony:Reynolds]

So these include the 'theatrical' and 'extended editions', but what about the 'director's cuts'? I have those on DVD but when the Blu Ray versions came out I didn't buy them because I had already bought the original 'theatrical' versions and then upgraded to the 'Director's Cuts' when they were shipped and didn't want to pay again. However, I'm thinking about getting the UHD but I only want to buy it one more time. Does anyone have an opinion about the Extended Editions versus the Director's Cut versions? Or is the Director's Cut just dead now and we won't see it again?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Hell, I don't remember any director's cut.

 

[DanH1972]

I was just thinking of how your purchase of the 6 film iTunes bundle of the extended versions will pay off sooner than expected. Honestly I don't even know why you need to supplement that with the actual discs later on, since the 4K digital upgrades will be the exact same masters, but that's your call.

Actually, you are not purchasing anything in a digital form. Read the usage agreement. That's like building a collection on sand. The iTunes version still has lossy audio and lower bitrate video. Dolby Atmos in lossy form is even less sophisticated than the lossless TrueHD version.

 

[TravisR]

So these include the 'theatrical' and 'extended editions', but what about the 'director's cuts'? I have those on DVD but when the Blu Ray versions came out I didn't buy them because I had already bought the original 'theatrical' versions and then upgraded to the 'Director's Cuts' when they were shipped and didn't want to pay again. However, I'm thinking about getting the UHD but I only want to buy it one more time. Does anyone have an opinion about the Extended Editions versus the Director's Cut versions? Or is the Director's Cut just dead now and we won't see it again?

There's two cuts of the movies- the theatrical cut and the extended cut. And a more knowledgeable LOTR fan can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Jackson considered the theatrical cuts to be his director's cuts and the extended cuts are just that.

 

[DanH1972]

So these include the 'theatrical' and 'extended editions', but what about the 'director's cuts'? I have those on DVD but when the Blu Ray versions came out I didn't buy them because I had already bought the original 'theatrical' versions and then upgraded to the 'Director's Cuts' when they were shipped and didn't want to pay again. However, I'm thinking about getting the UHD but I only want to buy it one more time. Does anyone have an opinion about the Extended Editions versus the Director's Cut versions? Or is the Director's Cut just dead now and we won't see it again?

There is no "director's cut" per se. Peter Jackson considers the extended cuts to be his best version so far without the time limitations associated with a theatrical release, but still likes the theatrical cuts as well. He would still like to do a super cut one day, but has yet to do so.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Director's Cut?! No. Perhaps when the extended version was first released it was referred to as that. However, as far as my memory goes, the Extended Cut was always the longer version of the film.

 

[DanH1972]

There's two cuts of the movies- the theatrical cut and the extended cut. And a more knowledgeable LOTR fan can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Jackson considered the theatrical cuts to be his director's cuts and the extended cuts are just that.

He considers the extended cuts to be the best cuts if you don't have time limitations. In TT and especially ROTK, there are whole story sections cut from the theatrical version for run time that only make sense once you see the extended cuts.

 

[DanH1972]

HFR required special equipment to project, so if theaters didn't want to spend the money for the upgrades, then they couldn't show it in that format. Only one theater near me made the investment. I saw one of the Hobbit films in HFR and did not like it at all. It almost made me think I was watching a stage production rather than a film. Didn't work for me, expecially with The Hobbit which is supposed to be a fantasy world, not looking like real life.

To me it looked similar to the smoothing/processing offered on current HDTV's that many call the Soap Opera effect. I don't like that look, either.

One issue with his 48 fps shooting style for The Hobbit Trilogy was that in order to make the conversion to 24 fps easier, he had to use a shutter speed other than the rule of 180. It made the motion kind of weird looking. 48 fps with a 180 degree shutter angle actually can look pretty good, and not soap opery.

 

[Yeoman007]

Zavvi also has steelbooks of the two trilogies.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Actually, you are not purchasing anything in a digital form. Read the usage agreement. That's like building a collection on sand. The iTunes version still has lossy audio and lower bitrate video. Dolby Atmos in lossy form is even less sophisticated than the lossless TrueHD version.

That might be true, but with my hearing, I can't really tell the difference between Dolby Atmos digitally versus a disc of the same movie.