or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Lord Of The Rings Extended
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Lord Of The Rings Extended - Page 128

post #3811 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpalmieri1203 View Post

Why are people so vengeful in this thread? I enjoy FOTR and think it looks great on my system. I personally wouldn't exchange my disc as it's not important enough for me to even remember. I'm sure 99% of the people who've purchased this set are happy with it.

I'm not saying you or any of the green haters are wrong. It's not even remotely apparent in the moving picture.

The obsession with "knowing" how it should look and want of perfection seems to take over the enjoyment of the presentation and art itself for some.
post #3812 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by estoniankid View Post

Well disagree with you. Two things I couldn't abide in S.W. ee were Han shooting first and the Han/Jaba scene in Ep 4. The other changes i liked and think they added to the cinematic experience. While I acknowledge
the audio is way off in S.W. ee, the lighting and tinting issues are not present. the flicks flow pretty consistently with one another but when
FOTR need magnifying glasses and recalibrating my settings to make it watchable, and I need sunglasses for TT & ROTK, these to me are far more serious and significant failures.

We will see this fall who has done a better job on their b.r. ee releases,
but for now,PJ has a lot of explaining to do.

I mean I was in for $100 for this box set, but the reviews are so bad I'll
wait 2-3 months to rent it.

Really hoping for much better from PJ.

I'm glad the changes personally worked out for you. The point is those of us who prefer the original cuts don't have access to them because Lucas would rather be a turd than release them.

And the color timing issues of all recent SW releases have been much more problematic.... to the point where Leia sometimes looks like a clown due to an extreme red bias, Luke's lightsaber is actually the wrong color in certain scenes (green where it should be blue in the original), etc. The reason the horrendous color timing of the SW trilogy is talked about so infrequently is because the other changes Lucas has made are so over-the-top absurd that it actually makes them look trivial.

PJ will have done a better job because when SW gets released the actual original, theatrical films, the movies that everyone fell in love with years ago and those that changed film history forever, will not be included in the package. Think about that. PJ has expressed time and time again an almost obsessive desire to please the fans of his films.... that is the sole reason these EE exist in the first place. Cuts of this nature were and still are unprecedented for releases such as these, given how much they add to the experience. Lucas has said outright that he has no interest in releasing the original trilogy and no interest in pleasing the fans of the films as they were originally seen. Wonder why PJ hasn't commented on this controversy yet? Wonder why it has only been an ultra-generic WB PR statement? I do.

Whatever though, this isn't a SW thread so it's pointless to argue about.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

We actually had some nut on this forum say that Jackson should go back and digitally replace Ian Holm in FotR with the actor who plays Bilbo in The Hobbit.

Hahaha. Can't say it surprises me.
post #3813 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

We actually had some nut on this forum say that Jackson should go back and digitally replace Ian Holm in FotR with the actor who plays Bilbo in The Hobbit.

I don't know who said that, but just for further clarification, were they suggesting that Ian Holm should be replaced throughout FOTR or just in the prologue?

I could actually see an argument being made for a prologue replacement (which isn't to say that I would necessarily agree with that argument), because there is a pretty glaring inconsistency between Bilbo's age in the FOTR prologue and in the new Hobbit movies. Of course, if a replacement was done in the FOTR prologue, Gandalf's line, "You haven't aged a day", would also need to be excised.

I'd also like to point out that a prologue replacement would not really be the same as the Anakin replacement in Return of the Jedi. In that film, there wasn't really any inconsistency that needed to be resolved, as Anakin would have been 20-30 years older than he was at the end of Revenge of the Sith. In reality, putting young Anakin into the end of ROTJ actually created an inconsistency, because we now need to ask why the ghosty Obi-Wan wasn't his young self at the end of ROTJ as well, or throughout the entire original trilogy for that matter.

Nonetheless, I reiterate that just because I can see a rational argument for a FOTR prologue replacement, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with that argument.

HeKS
post #3814 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeKS View Post

I'd also like to point out that a prologue replacement would not really be the same as the Anakin replacement in Return of the Jedi. In that film, there wasn't really any inconsistency that needed to be resolved, as Anakin would have been 20-30 years older than he was at the end of Revenge of the Sith. In reality, putting young Anakin into the end of ROTJ actually created an inconsistency, because we now need to ask why the ghosty Obi-Wan wasn't his young self at the end of ROTJ as well, or throughout the entire original trilogy for that matter.

Age inconsistencies aside, it would still be completely ludicrous to people like me. The gripes over Lucas' changes have nothing to do with consistency in my opinion. His endless CGI additions to the OT make them more "consistent" with the Prequels (which to me are all horrible movies) if anything, but they make the originals unwatchable nonetheless.

I personally couldn't care less so long as PJ made the original EE's (those of the original EE DVD releases) and the original TE's (the ones shown in theaters originally) an option alongside his new Lucas-esque changes (if he ever chose to do something like that). I think the new Lucas changes are absurd.... but I don't care about the changes so much as I do about the fact that the originals aren't available alongside them in equivalent quality. Would I watch the changed LotR versions? No, they'd be ridiculous to me.... but I wouldn't care so long as the original options still existed.

This is what makes Ridley Scott, and the most recent BD release of BR, so different than what the upcoming SW release will be.

Considering PJ hasn't done this, nor has he expressed an interest in doing so, and the only changes this time around involve color timing and contrast (that are likely the result of WB's tinkering and not his own) make the whole debate hypothetical.
post #3815 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Age inconsistencies aside, it would still be completely ludicrous to people like me. The gripes over Lucas' changes have nothing to do with consistency in my opinion. His endless CGI additions to the OT make them more "consistent" with the Prequels (which to me are all horrible movies) if anything, but they make the originals unwatchable nonetheless.

I personally couldn't care less so long as PJ made the original EE's (those of the original EE DVD releases) and the original TE's (the ones shown in theaters originally) an option alongside his new Lucas-esque changes (if he ever chose to do something like that). I think the new Lucas changes are absurd.... but I don't care about the changes so much as I do about the fact that the originals aren't available alongside them in equivalent quality. Would I watch the changed LotR versions? No, they'd be ridiculous to me.... but I wouldn't care so long as the original options still existed.

This is what makes Ridley Scott, and the most recent BD release of BR, so different than what the upcoming SW release will be.

Considering PJ hasn't done this, nor has he expressed an interest in doing so, and the only changes this time around involve color timing and contrast (that are likely the result of WB's tinkering and not his own) make the whole debate hypothetical.

Yeah, I get your point about making the originals available too.

And with FOTR, I reiterate that I would not necessarily agree with an argument to replace old Bilbo with young in the FOTR prologue. I simply think that an argument that says, basically, you can change about 5 seconds of footage to gain consistency with 2 additional 3-hour films, is not an obviously stupid one.

That said, I don't think it would actually work. Part of the power of the ring is that it essentially stops people from aging, or at least greatly slows the process, granting unnaturally long life. To have Bilbo find the ring when he's young in the prologue and then have aged drastically in the following years wouldn't make any sense, or it would require a further change to the description of the ring's powers and to Gandalf's line about "You haven't aged a day", which is what first makes Gandalf suspicious about something going on with Bilbo.

So I'm just not sure that consistency can be achieved between LOTR and the Hobbit films without having to lose something else in the process.

HeKS
post #3816 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by estoniankid View Post

Who woulda thought a director
could screw up a ee release anymore than lucas.

Appears PJ has just surpassed him in pissing fans off.

Too bad. I was really looking forward to purchasing this box set.

I don't know what to say other than wait to see if there will be an exchange for FOTR.

Ideally, the 3 films should "look" the same.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case with this release.

OTOH, if you can live with the slight "green tint" of FOTR, I don't feel you would be wasting your $$$ with this set.
Why?
Because there is much more detail and a wider gamut of colors (IMO) than the TR of FOTR.
In general, there is much less DNR on the EEs of LOTR.
TTT and ROTK definitely look better than their TR versions.
post #3817 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by storman View Post

I'm not trying to stir up the pot. I think I have a fairly good eye for color and after seeing some of the screen grabs I was pretty well convinced I'd see the same thing. But I didn't and I don't think it's a matter of interpretation - I do think Merry's vest looked exactly the way many people on this thread say it should look.

I would finish watching the movie. I noticed it more after watching disk 2 (it's pretty orange in the 2nd half while they're in the forest.
post #3818 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

We actually had some nut on this forum say that Jackson should go back and digitally replace Ian Holm in FotR with the actor who plays Bilbo in The Hobbit.

Why is this person a "nut" for suggesting that? Holm looks way too old as young Bilbo in FOTR (the wrinkled hand looks horrible) and replacing him with Martin Freeman sounds like a logical idea to serve as a connecting link from the Hobbit to FOTR. Besides, Jackson has said that he wants to redo Gollum in FOTR, since his character models looks totally different from the other 2 films.
post #3819 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

I hate the tint and contrast issues but this is nowhere near a Lucas-level of a screw-up. Not in the same ballpark, not even in the same universe.

I have to agree with Mr. Foul Smelling Dinkins here. This one is bad, but FOTR isn't the atrocious heart sinking poo pile that Jorge Lucas gave us with SW. Nor is FOTR (as a movie and iconic piece of cinema...regardless of whether or not I agree with it) on the same level as SW in the hearts and minds of movie fans...for the most part.
post #3820 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by richiek View Post


Besides, Jackson has said that he wants to redo Gollum in FOTR, since his character models looks totally different from the other 2 films.

I would be totally cool with that one change but which version will that get released on? How many blus are there gonna be of FOTR?!?
post #3821 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

How many blus are there gonna be of FOTR?!?

No more for me, I can tell you that much.
post #3822 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

No more for me, I can tell you that much.

I've held off so far. I still have the R2 EE DVDs as they look a lot better than the R1 and was all set to pull the trigger
post #3823 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by richiek View Post

Why is this person a "nut" for suggesting that? Holm looks way too old as young Bilbo in FOTR (the wrinkled hand looks horrible) and replacing him with Martin Freeman sounds like a logical idea to serve as a connecting link from the Hobbit to FOTR. Besides, Jackson has said that he wants to redo Gollum in FOTR, since his character models looks totally different from the other 2 films.

Once a movie is released, it is my opinion that no changes should be made. We were all able to deal with numerous James Bonds, and we can deal with different looking Gollums and Bilbos.
post #3824 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfoltz View Post

Once a movie is released, it is my opinion that no changes should be made.

The problem is that changes have to be made. The difference in dynamic range between film and video means that colors and luminance values must be adjusted in the video transfer. Thus, a slippery slope is always present and some filmmakers decide, "Well, we're adjusting this; why don't we just also adjust... this?"
post #3825 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfoltz View Post

Once a movie is released, it is my opinion that no changes should be made. We were all able to deal with numerous James Bonds, and we can deal with different looking Gollums and Bilbos.

+1

This revisionist crap for the sake of anal-retentive "continuity" has got to stop.

Just think if they redid the original Highlander in order to make it fit better with the canon of Highlander II: The Quickening. Ugh.
post #3826 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post
The problem is that changes have to be made. The difference in dynamic range between film and video means that colors and luminance values must be adjusted in the video transfer. Thus, a slippery slope is always present and some filmmakers decide, "Well, we're adjusting this; why don't we just also adjust... this?"
watching the dolby live event last Monday turns out the audio is changed for blu-ray as well as video. one film they were proud of was megamind which the audio is exactly what was in the theater must check it out.
post #3827 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfoltz View Post
Once a movie is released, it is my opinion that no changes should be made. We were all able to deal with numerous James Bonds, and we can deal with different looking Gollums and Bilbos.
I wouldn't go that far, because I believe in an artist's ownership of his own work. Especially in a culture where only commercial success guarantees artistic freedom.

But it would be a good thing if there were some sort of Filmmakers' Compact that they would all sign promising that, along with whatever revised versions they choose to release, the original theatrical versions of their films will also be kept available and in circulation. Call it the "'Our Debt to Film History' Clause" of the membership agreement of the Directors Guild or something.
post #3828 of 5568
I understand why revisions are made, I just personally do not like it because it creates the opportunity to lose historical importance/relevance/context (whatever you want to call it). Sure, it can lead toward improvements, but it just leaves that door open for failure. I would rather the artist complete his work and be done with it. Imagine if Steamboat Willy was revised to provide the updated Mickey Mouse model and Disney decided to shelve the original?

I am sure many disagree, I am just stating my thoughts.
post #3829 of 5568
Well one thing we all seem to agree on is that directors shouldn't mess with their theatrical releases. That's why we fell in love with both LOTR and SW, and that is why everyone is pissed off that their creators have decided to
make unnecessary and foolish changes in their re-released versions.

PJ and GL both need to return to cinematic schools and attend continuing education classes. They seem to have forgotten what made these movies
classics.
post #3830 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfoltz View Post

Once a movie is released, it is my opinion that no changes should be made. We were all able to deal with numerous James Bonds, and we can deal with different looking Gollums and Bilbos.

I agree. Even with very famous arts, there were errors made by the artists. But errors have become part of the artistic value.

That is the problem with CGI in movies today. Some directors just aren't satisfy with the original work and believe by fix with CGI, their work will be more perfect.

I have seen many old classics where the movie maker's crew appeared in the film by mistake. But they don't get fix even they can be easily fixed with CGI.

If PJ does "fix" the Gollum model in FOTR to closer match with TTT and ROTK with another LOTR edition, then this LOTR Ext edition may become the preferred edition as many will hate the next edition.
post #3831 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfoltz View Post

I understand why revisions are made, I just personally do not like it because it creates the opportunity to lose historical importance/relevance/context (whatever you want to call it). Sure, it can lead toward improvements, but it just leaves that door open for failure. I would rather the artist complete his work and be done with it. Imagine if Steamboat Willy was revised to provide the updated Mickey Mouse model and Disney decided to shelve the original?

I am sure many disagree, I am just stating my thoughts.

Yeah, I can't get on board with that. A cartoon is a wholly different medium as far as I'm concerned. If a director that created a feature film with live action characters wants to improve the quality of the picture so that the future audience can be better drawn in to the narrative, then I'm all for it.

I disagree with Spielberg's recent comments on the subject. For example, take something like Superman on bluray... I personally don't want to see the wires he's attached to as he's flying about Metropolis. I may have missed those wires while playing the film on VHS or DVD on a 32" screen, but chances are they're going to be a bit more noticeable on a 100" screen in hi-def. If they can fix that, and keep the illusion that "You'll Believe a Man Can Fly!", then yes, please do. That's not to say I agree with the types of changes Lucas made, but the changes he made were comically awful.

I truly wonder how people would feel about directors tweaking their films if it wasn't for the weird and outlandish things Lucas did to Star Wars (and on a lesser note, what Spielberg did to ET). I imagine most people would have been probably okay with it as long as it was tastefully done, but I guess we'll never know now.
post #3832 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by estoniankid View Post

Well one thing we all seem to agree on is that directors shouldn't mess with their theatrical releases. That's why we fell in love with both LOTR and SW, and that is why everyone is pissed off that their creators have decided to
make unnecessary and foolish changes in their re-released versions.

PJ and GL both need to return to cinematic schools and attend continuing education classes. They seem to have forgotten what made these movies
classics.

I don't think that PJ made this mistake. I think that this was some sort of RGB conversion mistake somewhere in the pipeline. Some of these digital manipulations go into higher colour ranges than home standards, and I think that someone forgot to set the colour range to standard RGB mode.
post #3833 of 5568
I have watched Fellowship about 3 1/2 times now, and while I love the added detail and depth from it being remastered, and the lack of DNR, and while I really don't mind the scene specific color grading, I really don't understand how anyone could really be rooting for a darker palette and cyan tint to just this one film.
post #3834 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

no more for me, i can tell you that much.

+++
+1+
+++
post #3835 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

No more for me, I can tell you that much.

Yeah, I'm not buying a different for a CGI change to make it "flow" with a movie that it being filmed after. I like the little inconsistencies with prequels because the movie wasn't even a thought until after the filmmaker had their vision. I respect different editions and changes but I don't necessarily push for them. Like I understand Hayden at the end of Jedi but i would make it have been in some alternate edition, not the end all say all version and "lose" the originals or whatever...ramble over....
post #3836 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfoltz View Post

Once a movie is released, it is my opinion that no changes should be made. We were all able to deal with numerous James Bonds, and we can deal with different looking Gollums and Bilbos.

- I agree 100%. If people can suspend disbelief and immerse themselves in a world where elves, dwarves and hobbits fight enormous flaming demons and turn invisible when wearing a magic ring, I think they can accept the fact that the Bilbo portrayed in FoTR doesn't look identical to the one in The Hobbit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colombianlove41 View Post

Like I understand Hayden at the end of Jedi but i would make it have been in some alternate edition, not the end all say all version and "lose" the originals or whatever...ramble over....

- I absolutely hate that change. Anakin Skywalker's moment of redemption is destroyed in an instant. Lucas felt that Anakin died when he became Darth Vader. So in the end, who or what saved Luke? A robot with nothing left of Anakin? If there was something left of Anakin, then the new ending makes no sense.
post #3837 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post

- I agree 100%. If people can suspend disbelief and immerse themselves in a world where elves, dwarves and hobbits fight enormous flaming demons and turn invisible when wearing a magic ring, I think they can accept the fact that the Bilbo portrayed in FoTR doesn't look identical to the one in The Hobbit.

- I absolutely hate that change. Anakin Skywalker's moment of redemption is destroyed in an instant. Lucas felt that Anakin died when he became Darth Vader. So in the end, who or what saved Luke? A robot with nothing left of Anakin? If there was something left of Anakin, then the new ending makes no sense.

That Anakin switch really bugs me. It'd be fine if Lucas offered untouched versions along side his new vision. I think Jackson would.
post #3838 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

I wouldn't go that far, because I believe in an artist's ownership of his own work. Especially in a culture where only commercial success guarantees artistic freedom.

But it would be a good thing if there were some sort of Filmmakers' Compact that they would all sign promising that, along with whatever revised versions they choose to release, the original theatrical versions of their films will also be kept available and in circulation. Call it the "'Our Debt to Film History' Clause" of the membership agreement of the Directors Guild or something.

Artist's ownership is relatively simple for a painter, writer or "music stylist", but who is the artist in a collaborative venture like a movie?

However, I do agree with the sentiment being expressed: a movie is the product of the time at which it is made (warts and all) and should be preserved as reference; if revised versions are deemed appropriate, then no problem as long as the reference is still available to the public.

From my perspective, the EE are also another "reference" and similarly should be preserved intact: if PJ wants to mess with the colours to better match the forthcoming "Hobbit", then I think that should be achieved with a new EE release along with the Hobbit release. However I would like to see FOTR EE corrected to make it more consistent with TTT EE and ROTK EE.

There is precedent for allowing differences between movie releases: with the demise of the actor playing the original Dumbledore in Harry Potter, the studio didn't then try to CGI that actors face on his replacement; as someone else has said, that is part of the fantasy and suspension of disbelief. The "art" is how to minimise jarring the audience, not remove the discontinuity completely.
post #3839 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post

I truly wonder how people would feel about directors tweaking their films if it wasn't for the weird and outlandish things Lucas did to Star Wars (and on a lesser note, what Spielberg did to ET). I imagine most people would have been probably okay with it as long as it was tastefully done, but I guess we'll never know now.

The "final cut" of Blade Runner is probably a good example of changes that most people are ok with, right? At least that's the impression I get. I certainly don't mind the digital removal of wires and I'd have no problem with matte lines being removed in Star Wars either.
post #3840 of 5568
Without going through 127 pages, are there any photos of the box set. In Australia, we got two version and I opted for this special "The One Ring" edition. Did the US or UK get that?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Lord Of The Rings Extended