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 177

post #5281 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Assuming there is something to readdress.

There is
post #5282 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Then there might be a chance they'll readdress the color timing.

And maybe give everything the green tint for consistency. ;-)

Be careful what you wish for: you just might get it
post #5283 of 5571
so i've been searching through this thread and can't quite figure this out.

so if i am mainly interested in better picture quality, and don't really care which version (Theatrical or Extended), i am thinking i should buy:

The Extended FOTR
Theatrical Cuts for TTT and ROTK??

is this remotely accurate?
post #5284 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by oleus View Post

so i've been searching through this thread and can't quite figure this out.

so if i am mainly interested in better picture quality, and don't really care which version (Theatrical or Extended), i am thinking i should buy:

The Extended FOTR
Theatrical Cuts for TTT and ROTK??

is this remotely accurate?
Other way 'round, stick to the Theatrical Fellowship.
post #5285 of 5571
Or simply enjoy the entire LOTR Trilogy EE BR set and call it a day.

Disclaimer I understand what bothers some about FOTR and it may have more to do with gamma or contrast than necessarily the greener color timing; at least for me this specific case has never really bothered me.

Best Regards
KvE
post #5286 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Other way 'round, stick to the Theatrical Fellowship.

And get a smeared, ugly, DNR-fest?
rolleyes.gif
post #5287 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by oleus View Post

so i've been searching through this thread and can't quite figure this out.

so if i am mainly interested in better picture quality, and don't really care which version (Theatrical or Extended), i am thinking i should buy:

The Extended FOTR
Theatrical Cuts for TTT and ROTK??

is this remotely accurate?
The reality is, the general consensus (a tiny, extremely vocal minority notwithstanding) is that the Extended versions all have far superior picture quality to the Theatrical releases.

Edited to add:

Here's what Robert Harris had to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

A few words about...™ The Lord of the Rings Trilogy - Extended Edition -- in Blu-ray

How many films truly endure decades and the test of time?


Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, The Wizard of Oz, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Gone with the Wind…


Think about it.



How many films are purposefully passed down from parent to child, generation to generation, as something that has attained a sense of wonderment, and endures that passage of time.


From the masterworks of J.R.R Tolkien, filmmaker Peter Jackson has created a motion picture trilogy that not only has that quality to endure, but now Warner Home Video has brought Mr. Jackson’s work to Blu-ray as he wishes them to be seen.


The imagery and audio of these new editions are not only problem free, but have a very special majesty and exultation about them-- perfect in every frame.


Make no mistake. The new Blu-rays of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy on Blu-ray are a ceaseless wonder that will survive the generations. They demand your attention.


Colin McKenzie would be pleased.


Very Highly Recommended.


RAH

Edited by Steeb - 10/25/13 at 8:52pm
post #5288 of 5571
Even Mr Harris gets it wrong once in a great while.

Yes it's true the extended editions have better transfers/encodes but Fellowship Of The Rings simply and very obviously has different color timing to any previous home video or theatrical release of the film that also does not follow through to the two other movies. It's very likely a technical mistake, not something done on purpose and a majority of viewers seem to be ok with the new color timing. But it is a fact inherent with the EE release.
post #5289 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Everyone may have to wait for a UHD version when they have to rescan the film elements for the LOTR trilogy and at least upconvert their CGI effects as well.

Then there might be a chance they'll readdress the color timing.

Peter Jackson is going to re-vist the whole film series in the future and they will all get 4K masters with new VFX work, but that is a long way off. Probably not until the Avatar film series is done as that is expected to be his cash cow to pay off the cost of building his studio and facilities in NZ as it's been said that the upcoming trilogy will be shot and post-produced there with his companies.
post #5290 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Even Mr Harris gets it wrong once in a great while.

Yes it's true the extended editions have better transfers/encodes but Fellowship Of The Rings simply and very obviously has different color timing to any previous home video or theatrical release of the film that also does not follow through to the two other movies. It's very likely a technical mistake, not something done on purpose and a majority of viewers seem to be ok with the new color timing. But it is a fact inherent with the EE release.

This has been said over and over, but it apparently has to be said again. Rather than type out an identical response, I'll simply copy and paste a post of mine from a year ago:

Few, if any, have denied that the colors have been changed.

The rub is, there are those who accept the fact that this release is the first we're seeing of the full-DI/full-color timing version of this film and are willing to give PJ and company the benefit of the doubt that this is the intended look of the film. The reality is, most people who actually watch it (as opposed to flipping back and forth between screencaps and YouTube videos) will (and do) think it looks fantastic. YMMV.



Then, of course, we have this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Bits View Post

I've confirmed with production-related sources that Jackson and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie were directly involved in all decisions related to this new transfer and approved it personally. So to the extent that there are changes to the color-timing, they were made at Jackson and Lesnie's direction - the films look exactly as they want them to.

Not that I think any of this will ever change the minds of the vocal minority.
post #5291 of 5571
Another thing that has been said over and over, but bears repeating, is that FOTR looks decidedly different than the other films on Blu, and different than they've ever looked previously. If you want to accept that it is the intended look of the film, then that's up to you of course. But the film looks bad to many people on Blu, and different enough from the other films that saying it's the intended look doesn't make sense. Regardless of what anyone involved says. If anyone has been following the Halloween saga, you would know that studio reps, friends of the family, and even the director, saying the film looks as intended, means little to nothing, when the proof is in looking, that something is obviously amiss. But hey, do as you please.

For my eyes, FOTR looks pretty bad and I will be happy if and when a corrected version comes out. Until then, I watch the theatrical version or the dvd version, as the Blu is too distracting for me.
post #5292 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Another thing that has been said over and over, but bears repeating, is that FOTR looks decidedly different than the other films on Blu, and different than they've ever looked previously.
Which makes sense, given what we know. Did you really expect it to look the same, despite this being a full-DI/fully-color timed version we've never seen before?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

If you want to accept that it is the intended look of the film, then that's up to you of course.
The evidence at hand, including the statement provided by Digital Bits, suggests this is how it's supposed to look. You, and a handful of others, not liking the color scheme is not evidence of an error. Saying it looks different from past versions is simply stating the obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

But the film looks bad to many people on Blu, and different enough from the other films that saying it's the intended look doesn't make sense.
No, it "looks bad" to a tiny number of enthusiasts, many of whom have never watched or owned the disc in question and are basing their opinions solely on screencaps and YouTube videos.
post #5293 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Another thing that has been said over and over, but bears repeating, is that FOTR looks decidedly different than the other films on Blu, and different than they've ever looked previously. If you want to accept that it is the intended look of the film, then that's up to you of course. But the film looks bad to many people on Blu, and different enough from the other films that saying it's the intended look doesn't make sense. Regardless of what anyone involved says. If anyone has been following the Halloween saga, you would know that studio reps, friends of the family, and even the director, saying the film looks as intended, means little to nothing, when the proof is in looking, that something is obviously amiss. But hey, do as you please.

For my eyes, FOTR looks pretty bad and I will be happy if and when a corrected version comes out. Until then, I watch the theatrical version or the dvd version, as the Blu is too distracting for me.
You need to read the previous post...again....and very carefully. This isn't up for interpretation, opinion, or guesswork. It is what it is. These films are not yours and the decisions made in reference to their production are not yours to make. The people who have the responsibility and privilege of making those choices, have done so. The only choice you have is whether or not you decide to view and enjoy them.
Edited by HD-Master - 10/28/13 at 2:11pm
post #5294 of 5571
As a happy owner of the Extended / Boxed set BD's .. no matter what some may say PQ wise and what angst they may feel .. it is, none the less, a glorious cinematic accomplishment that will continue to stand the test of time ..
post #5295 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

You need to read the previous post...again....and very carefully. This isn't up for interpretation, opinion, or guesswork. It is what it is. These films are not yours and the decisions made in reference to their production are not yours to make. The people who have the responsibility and privilege of making those choices, have done so. The only choice you have is whether or not you decide to view and enjoy them.

I don't actually. I fully understood it the first time I read it and responded to it. You are the one who needs to re-read. I've said nothing at all about wanting anything that is anything but how the movie is supposed to look. We simply differ in the belief that the VASTLY different look of FOTR on Blu Ray is how it's actually supposed to be. Even though it doesn't look that way, and hasn't looked that way, before or since. I could understand if there were irrefutable proof that the the way it looks on the latest disc is the way it looked when released to theaters, and is the way that PJ wants it to look. But there isn't. No matter what anyone says, there isn't. PJ hasn't come out and said "Hey guys, I've watched the Blu Ray on a calibrated monitor, and although it looks vastly different from the previous releases, both theatrically and at home, it is the way I've always wanted it to look, and is the way it is supposed to look. Yes, I know what you're thinking, and I purposely didn't adjust the two remaining films, or The Hobbit to match it, but it's perfectly fine and how it should be. Carry on." Had he said anything like that, then I'd simply be upset that he made the movie look like ass. But he didn't. I'm upset that the movie looks bad AND it doesn't look the way it should.

I am 100% in favor of movies at home looking exactly the way they should, and be accurate to whatever the reference is. That's why I have a calibrated TV and I try to purchase whatever version of the movie is closest to accurate. As far as LOTR.........2 and 3 look great, 1 doesn't. That's my opinion. There is no proof that the movie looks correct. Logically, it's pretty difficult to surmise that it does, no matter what the studio has said. But hey, you can choose to believe what you want.
Edited by lordcloud - 10/29/13 at 8:33am
post #5296 of 5571
For fun here is a photo I took at Mahatamata, New Zealand, in January of 2011.
post #5297 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

You need to read the previous post...again....and very carefully. This isn't up for interpretation, opinion, or guesswork. It is what it is. These films are not yours and the decisions made in reference to their production are not yours to make. The people who have the responsibility and privilege of making those choices, have done so. The only choice you have is whether or not you decide to view and enjoy them.

I don't actually. I fully understood it the first time I read it and responded to it. You are the one who needs to re read. I've said nothing at all about wanting anything that is anything but how the movie is supposed to look. we simply differ in the belief that the VASTLY different look of FOTR on Blu Ray is how it's actually supposed to look. Even though it doesn't look that way,and hasn't looked that way, before or since. I could understand if there was irrefutable proof that the the way it looks on the latest disc is the way it looked when released to theaters, and is the way that PJ wants it to look. But there isn't. No matter what anyone says, there isn't. PJ hasn't come out and said "Hey guys, I've watched the Blu Ray on a calibrated monitor, and although it looks vastly different from the previous releases, both theatrically and at home, it is the way I've always wanted it to look, and is the way it is supposed to look. Yes, I know what you're thinking, and I purposely didn't adjust the two remaining films, or The Hobbit to match it, but it's perfectly fine and how it should be. Carry on." Had he said anything like that, then I'd simply be upset that he made the movie look like ass. But he didn't. I'm upset that the movie looks bad AND it doesn't look the way it should.

I am 100% in favor of movies at home looking exactly the way they should and be accurate to whatever the reference is. That's why I have a calibrated TV set and I try to purchase whatever version of the movie is closest to accurate. as far as LOTR...2 and 3 look great, 1 doesn't. That's my opinion. But it not looking correct, as of right now, isn't. There is no proof that the movie looks correct. Logically, it's pretty difficult to surmise that it does, no matter what the studio has said. But hey, you can choose to believe what you want.

Proof:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Bits View Post

I've confirmed with production-related sources that Jackson and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie were directly involved in all decisions related to this new transfer and approved it personally. So to the extent that there are changes to the color-timing, they were made at Jackson and Lesnie's direction - the films look exactly as they want them to.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/site_archive/reviewshd/bdreviews061411.html

The film looks just as it was intended to look for this release. Whether or not it matches what was seen theatrically is irrelevant, as the new color timing is limited to this most recent release. I think we're done here. Probably not...but we should be.
post #5298 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Proof:
The film looks just as it was intended to look for this release. Whether or not it matches what was seen theatrically is irrelevant, as the new color timing is limited to this most recent release. I think we're done here. Probably not...but we should be.

When Peter Jackson himself says he approves the look of the Blu Ray, or even that it is the intended look, or it's how he's always wanted it to look so he changed it to match, then it will be proof. Someone (whomever it is), saying they talked to "production related sources" and these sources confirmed that according to PJ, he approved it personally, is not actually proof. You may accept it as such, but it isn't.
post #5299 of 5571
Ugh. You know, it actually doesn't matter if it was some kind of technical error along the chain to produce the EE Blu-ray or if Jackson himself sat at the editing chair with a bottle of Smoking Loon and drunkenly tweaked the knobs to get the EE color timing change.

It's done. But that doesn't make it right no matter what the circumstances, who was responsible or what excuses have been doled out.

Finally, the reasoning that "The Director" (or DOP) approved the new color timing means little or even validates questionable revisionism - look at William Friedkin and the first release of "The French Connection" for a textbook example of not only a director getting it wrong on his own movie, but later backpeddling.
Edited by Partyslammer - 10/29/13 at 9:18am
post #5300 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Proof:
The film looks just as it was intended to look for this release. Whether or not it matches what was seen theatrically is irrelevant, as the new color timing is limited to this most recent release. I think we're done here. Probably not...but we should be.

When Peter Jackson himself says he approves the look of the Blu Ray, or even that it is the intended look, or it's how he's always wanted it to look so he changed it to match, then it will be proof. Someone (whomever it is), saying they talked to "production related sources" and these sources confirmed that according to PJ, he approved it personally, is not actually proof. You may accept it as such, but it isn't.

Actually, yes it is. Your denial of that is just a denial of the facts. You have an agenda and nothing will change that. I'd ask you to provide something to support your claims that this is not how it was intended to look, but you cannot.
post #5301 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

It's done. But that doesn't make it right no matter what the circumstances, who was responsible or what excuses have been doled out.

Of course it makes it right. The only "right" look is the look intentionally achieved and deemed appropriate by the filmmaker. Nothing else matters. It's his film.
post #5302 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Of course it makes it right. The only "right" look is the look intentionally achieved and deemed appropriate by the filmmaker. Nothing else matters. It's his film.

There are plenty of films created by plenty of talented directors where the studio controlled the video release. Some may only have a passing interest in their previous work and really don't want to be bothered with it. This is where problems start to occur. Also, without a master shot list or other original cinematography documentation, their memories can get fuzzy. Case in point... Friedkin and his DP.

Even Coppola finally had to rein in his DP Vittorio Storaro on Apocalypse Now, so he could release it in the intended scope presentation on Blu-ray. Vittorio had pretty much decided on his own in the video booth that they should crop all these Panavision films to his beloved 2.0:1 ratio, irrespective of the original framing. That's why AN looks soooo much better at 2.37:1. Too bad Criterion couldn't have released The Last Emperor that way.
post #5303 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Of course it makes it right. The only "right" look is the look intentionally achieved and deemed appropriate by the filmmaker. Nothing else matters. It's his film.

There are plenty of films created by plenty of talented directors where the studio controlled the video release. Some may only have a passing interest in their previous work and really don't want to be bothered with it. This is where problems start to occur. Also, without a master shot list or other original cinematography documentation, their memories can get fuzzy. Case in point... Friedkin and his DP.

Even Coppola finally had to rein in his DP Vittorio Storaro on Apocalypse Now, so he could release it in the intended scope presentation on Blu-ray. Vittorio had pretty much decided on his own in the video booth that they should crop all these Panavision films to his beloved 2.0:1 ratio, irrespective of the original framing. That's why AN looks soooo much better at 2.37:1. Too bad Criterion couldn't have released The Last Emperor that way.
We aren't talking about the studio, but rather Jackson himself. These are his changes, not the studio's.
post #5304 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Of course it makes it right. The only "right" look is the look intentionally achieved and deemed appropriate by the filmmaker. Nothing else matters. It's his film.

There's a clash of schools of thought here. One school of thought is "if the filmmaker makes a revision to a film long after its wide public release/distribution, then that revision is the 'right' look of the film and all previous versions are 'wrong'." This is the Star Wars school. The other school of thought is that if a filmmaker makes such a revision to a film, then both the original and the revised versions of the film are both 'right', just different versions of the same film which can be freely judged as better or worse than the other. This is the Blade Runner school.

The tension here is that there has been an alteration made to the film (intentional or accidental makes no difference), but only the latest revision has been released on Blu-ray. The original version, which some prefer, is unlikely to ever be released on Blu-ray. The arguments are about whether those changes were good changes to make, whether those changes were intentional (which is really irrelevant so I don't know why anyone bothers to argue this point on either side), whether they intend to buy it after they rented it or watched it elsewhere, and whether it might be possible to derive an approximation of the first version using adjustments to the second.

They are most definitely not about whether a filmmaker has the right to revisit and alter his films if he chooses.
Edited by CatBus - 10/29/13 at 10:11am
post #5305 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Ugh. You know, it actually doesn't matter if it was some kind of technical error along the chain to produce the EE Blu-ray or if Jackson himself sat at the editing chair with a bottle of Smoking Loon and drunkenly tweaked the knobs to get the EE color timing change.
Because the only possible explanation for the change is either an error or Jackson was drunk, right? rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

It's done. But that doesn't make it right no matter what the circumstances, who was responsible or what excuses have been doled out.

Finally, the reasoning that "The Director" (or DOP) approved the new color timing means little or even validates questionable revisionism - look at William Friedkin and the first release of "The French Connection" for a textbook example of not only a director getting it wrong on his own movie, but later backpeddling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

There's a clash of schools of thought here. One school of thought is "if the filmmaker makes a revision to a film long after its wide public release/distribution, then that revision is the 'right' look of the film and all previous versions are 'wrong'." This is the Star Wars school. The other school of thought is that if a filmmaker makes such a revision to a film, then both the original and the revised versions of the film are both 'right', just different versions of the same film which can be freely judged as better or worse than the other. This is the Blade Runner school.

The tension here is that there has been an alteration made to the film (intentional or accidental makes no difference), but only the latest revision has been released on Blu-ray. The original version, which some prefer, is unlikely to ever be released on Blu-ray. The arguments are about whether those changes were good changes to make, whether those changes were intentional (which is really irrelevant so I don't know why anyone bothers to argue this point on either side), whether they intend to buy it after they rented it or watched it elsewhere, and whether it might be possible to derive an approximation of the first version using adjustments to the second.

They are most definitely not about whether a filmmaker has the right to revisit and alter his films if he chooses.
You guys need to remember that these changes didn't happen recently or "long after its wide public release/distribution," they happened during the production/post-production of the last two films of the original trilogy (I can't remember exactly when.) The changes are new to us because this release was the first time the completed version was ever released. This isn't about a filmmaker going back and making changes decades after the release of the film. It's about a director who only had enough clout after the success of the first film to go back and scan the whole film and re-time the entire movie and make things just the way he wanted them to look.

But really, this is just one big rehash of old arguments. The few of you who are upset will continue to be upset, regardless of what is said, while the rest of us will continue to enjoy watching the films in the best quality presentations available.
post #5306 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Of course it makes it right. The only "right" look is the look intentionally achieved and deemed appropriate by the filmmaker. Nothing else matters. It's his film.

There's a clash of schools of thought here. One school of thought is "if the filmmaker makes a revision to a film long after its wide public release/distribution, then that revision is the 'right' look of the film and all previous versions are 'wrong'." This is the Star Wars school. The other school of thought is that if a filmmaker makes such a revision to a film, then both the original and the revised versions of the film are both 'right', just different versions of the same film which can be freely judged as better or worse than the other. This is the Blade Runner school.

The tension here is that there has been an alteration made to the film (intentional or accidental makes no difference), but only the latest revision has been released on Blu-ray. The original version, which some prefer, is unlikely to ever be released on Blu-ray. The arguments are about whether those changes were good changes to make, whether those changes were intentional (which is really irrelevant so I don't know why anyone bothers to argue this point on either side), whether they intend to buy it after they rented it or watched it elsewhere, and whether it might be possible to derive an approximation of the first version using adjustments to the second.

They are most definitely not about whether a filmmaker has the right to revisit and alter his films if he chooses.

Lordcloud wants the "corrected" version. This IS the corrected version, according to Jackson.

Let's not complicate this more than necessary. This is a new version of the same film. This is the version which was chosen for release. Lordcloud sees it as a mistake, rather than a deliberate and carefully crafted choice (despite the evidence). That is an opinion he is certainly welcome to, but that is all it is: an opinion. The fact is that it is not an error or a goof or a studio run amok. That...is not an opinion.

If multiple versions of a film are available, happily chose the one which suits you. If, however, the version you demand is not made available...don't act like you somehow have a right to it. This is the version of this release which has been approved by the filmmaker and offered to consumers. That is it. End of story. Get over it or get to work making films for yourself.
post #5307 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Actually, yes it is. Your denial of that is just a denial of the facts. You have an agenda and nothing will change that. I'd ask you to provide something to support your claims that this is not how it was intended to look, but you cannot.

There are no facts that prove the release is just as what PJ intended or is happy with. There are simply people saying that according to him it is. Those are not facts, and there are no facts for me to deny.

You should probably not toss around words like agenda, when on a forum about audio and video. It just seems stupid and always has, anytime any of the crazies around here say it. I really wish people would stop with that term.

I have no proof from PJ that the movie isn't as it should be, and you have no proof that it is. My proof is as solid as yours, but far more logical.

If you are happy with the release, great for you. But that in no way means it is correct. I believe it isn't, you believe it is. I believe that my evidence is substantial, and so do you.
post #5308 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Lordcloud wants the "corrected" version. This IS the corrected version, according to Jackson.

Show me where Peter Jackson says that this is the corrected version please. That's all I want. If he says it's correct, then as I've said, I'll be ok with that, and just be upset that he made it look like crap.
post #5309 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Lordcloud wants the "corrected" version. This IS the corrected version, according to Jackson.

Show me where Peter Jackson says that this is the corrected version please. That's all I want. If he says it's correct, then as I've said, I'll be ok with that, and just be upset that he made it look like crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Bits View Post

I've confirmed with production-related sources that Jackson and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie were directly involved in all decisions related to this new transfer and approved it personally. So to the extent that there are changes to the color-timing, they were made at Jackson and Lesnie's direction - the films look exactly as they want them to.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/site_archive/reviewshd/bdreviews061411.html

More information here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/306013-a-few-words-about™-the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-extended-edition-in-blu-ray/

If you don't want to believe Bill Hunt and Robert Harris, that delusion is all yours.
post #5310 of 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lord cloud View Post

I believe that my evidence is substantial
You have yet to provide any at all.
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