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 178

post #5311 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post


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.

Yeah.......that's still not proof and I don't understand why you accept it as such. Robert Harris had nothing to do with making the film or the blu ray, neither did Bill Hunt. The fact that they accept it as being correct means nothing to me. When Peter Jackson says so, then it's proof. Until then, it's all an opinion or anecdotal evidence.

The movie looks vastly different and no one has been able to come forward and say why. Those are the facts.
post #5312 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post


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.

Yeah.......that's still not proof and I don't understand why you accept it as such. Robert Harris had nothing to do with making the film or the blu ray, neither did Bill Hunt. The fact that they accept it as being correct means nothing to me. When Peter Jackson says so, then it's proof. Until then, it's all an opinion or anecdotal evidence.

The movie looks vastly different and no one has been able to come forward and say why. Those are the facts.
Bill Hunt spoke with those directly involved in the production of this very release to verify the information and Robert Harris provided information about how it came to be. It appears that you have some reading to do. Where is your proof?
post #5313 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb View Post

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.

Regardless of the timing of the alterations, there are undeniably two distinct versions of the film. This scenario is not unique the FOTR:EE. With Cinema Paradiso, a long cut was created and even shown at film festivals before the theatrical release. The fact that the director wanted the movie to look a certain way, or which one came first, isn't even tangentially related to whether it's any good or not.
Quote:
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.

Almost agree. We will continue to be upset because no amount of talking can make our preferred version of the movie available on Blu-ray. However, it is we who will continue to watch the films in the best quality presentations available--it just isn't as high-quality as we'd like wink.gif
post #5314 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

Bill Hunt spoke with those directly involved in the production of this very release to verify the information and Robert Harris provided information about how it came to be. It appears that you have some reading to do. Where is your proof?

I've read everything involved with the Bill Hunt fiasco. He says he spoke to people close to the production of the disc, and that the color timing was what PJ wanted.

First, the color timing isn't the issue people are having with the disc. It's the green tint and the darkening of the image. The color timing, for the most part, is just fine. There is a difference. And even if he was talking about the green tint, that is still not proof. Bill Hunt's review was suspect and Robert Harris could barely see the green tint or the darkening of the image.

If someone has no issue with the disc, then that's fine, but there is still no proof that it is what Peter Jackson intended.

My proof? The movie looks very different and there is no proof that it was intentional on the part of Peter Jackson. I don't have to have proof of that, it's there. When a change is made in the movie world, when a movie is put on to disc, the onus of proof is not on the observer of the change, but rather those who made the change, that it is correct and intentional on the part of the film maker. No such proof exists.
post #5315 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

The movie looks vastly different and no one has been able to come forward and say why. Those are the facts.

Another well known fact is that FOTR couldn't be properly color graded before the theatrical release. We also know that FOTR was regraded (not sure that word exists but well...;-) by its director and his DP specifically for the Blu-ray EE. So for now the "evidence" tends to point to "this is what they wanted".
post #5316 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post


My proof? The movie looks very different and there is no proof that it was intentional on the part of Peter Jackson. I don't have to have proof of that, it's there. When a change is made in the movie world, when a movie is put on to disc, the onus of proof is not on the observer of the change, but rather those who made the change, that it is correct and intentional on the part of the film maker. No such proof exists.

Absence of proof is n...nevermind wink.gif

...How come people didn't react the same way for The Matrix? just wondering that's all.
post #5317 of 5568
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.


Exactly. If they had just released both the new version and the original version we have been watching all these years prior to the EE blu, this whole mess could have been avoided and everyone would be happy. Take your pick, old or new. Unfortunately we don't have that choice like we do with something like Blade Runner.

Having said all that and while I would love to have my snow white and skies blue again, this new version is far from bad and overall still looks excellent to my eyes after watching it on my calibrated projector. The green tint when you watch the film as one normally does (not staring at comparison screenshots of old vs new) IMO is not anywhere near as bad as the screens would lead you to believe. If you are a fan of this movie, at least watch it on your own set and then judge before casting it into the fires of Mt Doom. biggrin.gif The cold harsh reality is this is the only version we will get on blu most likely and I would think the only possibility of getting the original is when they release the 4k version however many years down the road that will be and even then, I think it is highly unlikely that we will see the original as all signs point to this being intentional IMO. It would be great if we got the choice, but I would not hold my breath. If you are a fan of the movie, I think it's a shame to let this keep you from watching and owning this great film since chances are, it will never change.

Lordcloud, I certainly understand and respect your feelings as I have/had similar feelings, but answer me this.........have you actually watched the Extended Edition blu ray in your HT, or are all of your comments based strictly off what you have seen of the screenshots?
post #5318 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Another well known fact is that FOTR couldn't be properly color graded before the theatrical release. We also know that FOTR was regraded (not sure that word exists but well...;-) by its director and his DP specifically for the Blu-ray EE. So for now the "evidence" tends to point to "this is what they wanted".

Points to, is still not evidence. Again, Peter Jackson hasn't said that this is the intentional look of the film. Until that happens, there is no proof or evidence pointing towards this different look for the film being correct.
post #5319 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post


Lordcloud, I certainly understand and respect your feelings as I have/had similar feelings, but answer me this.........have you actually watched the Extended Edition blu ray in your HT, or are all of your comments based strictly off what you have seen of the screenshots?

I have had the theatrical dvds, the EE dvds, I have the theatrical Blu Ray as well as the EE blu ray. I've watched them on three calibrated displays, and the difference is big, for me at least.

Some people like it, I do not. I watch the theatrical blu ray when watching FOTR now.
post #5320 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Absence of proof is n...nevermind wink.gif

...How come people didn't react the same way for The Matrix? just wondering that's all.

Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence in many cases.

The Matrix re-grading was intentional at least.
post #5321 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Another well known fact is that FOTR couldn't be properly color graded before the theatrical release. We also know that FOTR was regraded (not sure that word exists but well...;-) by its director and his DP specifically for the Blu-ray EE. So for now the "evidence" tends to point to "this is what they wanted".

Points to, is still not evidence. Again, Peter Jackson hasn't said that this is the intentional look of the film. Until that happens, there is no proof or evidence pointing towards this different look for the film being correct.
We get it. In your book, the fact that he did it doesn't prove that he did it because he didn't personally verbalize that he did it. He did it, but doing it ain't enough unless you say aloud that you did it and explain why you did what you did after you done did it.
post #5322 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post


Lordcloud, I certainly understand and respect your feelings as I have/had similar feelings, but answer me this.........have you actually watched the Extended Edition blu ray in your HT, or are all of your comments based strictly off what you have seen of the screenshots?

I have had the theatrical dvds, the EE dvds, I have the theatrical Blu Ray as well as the EE blu ray. I've watched them on three calibrated displays, and the difference is big, for me at least.

Some people like it, I do not. I watch the theatrical blu ray when watching FOTR now.
What displays? Calibrated by whom and with what?
post #5323 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I have had the theatrical dvds, the EE dvds, I have the theatrical Blu Ray as well as the EE blu ray. I've watched them on three calibrated displays, and the difference is big, for me at least.

Some people like it, I do not. I watch the theatrical blu ray when watching FOTR now.

Fair enough. smile.gif

The other thing that sucks though is the theatrical blu has it's own set of issues which I personally feel is more bothersome vs the green tint (I know this is subjective though and some will be bothered more by the issues on one release vs the other). Compromises either way. I am with you though as far as wishing we had the original coloring back. Even though it is overall a minor issue for me, I would certainly not watch the green tinted version if I did not have to and would much prefer to watch the version I had been watching for all those years up to that point!
post #5324 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

We get it. In your book, the fact that he did it doesn't prove that he did it because he didn't personally verbalize that he did it. He did it, but doing it ain't enough unless you say aloud that you did it and explain why you did what you did after you done did it.

It should be in anyone's book, that someone saying they talked to someone who worked with the person that made the changes, isn't proof. Especially in the movie industry. We have a couple very recent instances of this happening, let alone going back in history. There is no actual proof that the changes were made by PJ or approved by him. How is this a hard thing to understand? Why are you so ok with just taking someone's word for it, but who still didn't say that he got the info from Peter Jackson? And that word still didn't address anything specific to the actual problem with the transfer.
post #5325 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Fair enough. smile.gif

The other thing that sucks though is the theatrical blu has it's own set of issues which I personally feel is more bothersome vs the green tint (I know this is subjective though and some will be bothered more by the issues on one release vs the other). Compromises either way. I am with you though as far as wishing we had the original coloring back. Even though it is overall a minor issue for me, I would certainly not watch the green tinted version if I did not have to and would much prefer to watch the version I had been watching for all those years up to that point!

I much prefer the theatrical version to the EE, as far as an overall pleasing viewing experience, though I much prefer the EE as a movie. I think the green tint is so severe to my eyes and so jarring, that I just can't abide by it. My display is "only" 73 inches, so I imagine if I had a projection system to view it on, I'd think differently.

I wish it were a minor issue for me. If the green tint was gone, I'd be more ok with it. But the combo of the tint and the dark picture, just looks too bad on my screen. Now granted, I'm more preoccupied with black levels than many people, but it is what it is. I just want real proof that it is what Peter Jackson wants. If so, I'll watch it and know that I'm watching the definitive version. But I'll still want for the originally shown version.
post #5326 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

We get it. In your book, the fact that he did it doesn't prove that he did it because he didn't personally verbalize that he did it. He did it, but doing it ain't enough unless you say aloud that you did it and explain why you did what you did after you done did it.

It should be in anyone's book, that someone saying they talked to someone who worked with the person that made the changes, isn't proof. Especially in the movie industry. We have a couple very recent instances of this happening, let alone going back in history. There is no actual proof that the changes were made by PJ or approved by him. How is this a hard thing to understand? Why are you so ok with just taking someone's word for it, but who still didn't say that he got the info from Peter Jackson? And that word still didn't address anything specific to the actual problem with the transfer.
There is no problem. Only an intentional change, per Peter Jackson.
post #5327 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Fair enough. smile.gif

The other thing that sucks though is the theatrical blu has it's own set of issues which I personally feel is more bothersome vs the green tint (I know this is subjective though and some will be bothered more by the issues on one release vs the other). Compromises either way. I am with you though as far as wishing we had the original coloring back. Even though it is overall a minor issue for me, I would certainly not watch the green tinted version if I did not have to and would much prefer to watch the version I had been watching for all those years up to that point!

I much prefer the theatrical version to the EE, as far as an overall pleasing viewing experience, though I much prefer the EE as a movie. I think the green tint is so severe to my eyes and so jarring, that I just can't abide by it. My display is "only" 73 inches, so I imagine if I had a projection system to view it on, I'd think differently.

I wish it were a minor issue for me. If the green tint was gone, I'd be more ok with it. But the combo of the tint and the dark picture, just looks too bad on my screen. Now granted, I'm more preoccupied with black levels than many people, but it is what it is. I just want real proof that it is what Peter Jackson wants. If so, I'll watch it and know that I'm watching the definitive version. But I'll still want for the originally shown version.
You said you had viewed the EE on three calibrated displays. What displays? Who were they calibrated by and with what equipment?
post #5328 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

You said you had viewed the EE on three calibrated displays. What displays? Who were they calibrated by and with what equipment?

I've viewed it on more than three calibrated displays actually. Three were my displays, and others were displays in the homes of other videophiles and a few times in two high end home theater showrooms.

They were all calibrated by people passionate about video quality using different equipment of course, and they varied from my current modified DLP RP to a CRT to a Runco and Sim projector, and display technologies in between.

But even if I hadn't viewed it on a calibrated display, it really wouldn't make much difference. If you watch two things on a non calibrated display and the change is perceived in both, it is still proof that there is a change. The exact change may not be as quantifiable as on a calibrated display, but it's still perceivable.
Edited by lordcloud - 10/29/13 at 3:05pm
post #5329 of 5568
Peter Jackson has gone on record several times stating that once Warner BROS took over the films, his input was no longer asked for ..

.. you'd think it was the end of the World as we know it ..

http://collider.com/peter-jackson-talks-the-hobbit-blu-raydvd-lord-of-the-rings-3d-conversion-and-lackluster-blu-ray-set/

The New Zealand landscapes look fantastic, with foliage, rocky bluffs, and flowing rivers all displayed in vivid detail. Black levels are deep. Some of the decade-plus old CG effects definitely show their age in the unforgiving clarity of high definition. But anyone without a real point of reference will think the colors look appropriate and consistent throughout.

The trilogy has gone down in history as one of the most important achievements in fantasy film making. I enjoy it as such ..

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/lord-rings-trilogy-extended-editions-blu-ray
post #5330 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

Peter Jackson has gone on record several times stating that once Warner BROS took over the films, his input was no longer asked for ..

.. you'd think it was the end of the World as we know it ..

http://collider.com/peter-jackson-talks-the-hobbit-blu-raydvd-lord-of-the-rings-3d-conversion-and-lackluster-blu-ray-set/

The New Zealand landscapes look fantastic, with foliage, rocky bluffs, and flowing rivers all displayed in vivid detail. Black levels are deep. Some of the decade-plus old CG effects definitely show their age in the unforgiving clarity of high definition. But anyone without a real point of reference will think the colors look appropriate and consistent throughout.

The trilogy has gone down in history as one of the most important achievements in fantasy film making. I enjoy it as such ..

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/lord-rings-trilogy-extended-editions-blu-ray
The changes being discussed were made by Jackson and company long before this BD release, while Jackson was still working on the end of the trilogy. This isn't new.
post #5331 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

Peter Jackson has gone on record several times stating that once Warner BROS took over the films, his input was no longer asked for ..

.. you'd think it was the end of the World as we know it ..

http://collider.com/peter-jackson-talks-the-hobbit-blu-raydvd-lord-of-the-rings-3d-conversion-and-lackluster-blu-ray-set/

Yet it should be noted that the above article is from 3 and half years ago, and refers only to the Theatrical versions of the trilogy on Blu-ray, NOT the EE, which was first released in June 2011.
Quote:
The trilogy has gone down in history as one of the most important achievements in fantasy film making. I enjoy it as such ..

Me too. smile.gif
post #5332 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Yet it should be noted that the above article is from 3 and half years ago, and refers only to the Theatrical versions of the trilogy on Blu-ray, NOT the EE, which was first released in June 2011.
Me too. smile.gif

All I'm suggesting is Jackson himself apparently had no involvement from Warner on ..

I'll add that “color grading” is done in about every film transfer on the planet ..

This whole green bru ha ha started when Blu-ray editions of the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy, before this set reached the stores, some screen shots from the first film surfaced that showed a sickly green cast over entire scenes which was obviously enhanced by those that posted the shots and the storm has brewed ever since ..

I'll be 85 and browsing AVS someday and the same debate will, I guess, continue to rage .. wink.gif
post #5333 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD-Master View Post

The changes being discussed were made by Jackson and company long before this BD release, while Jackson was still working on the end of the trilogy. This isn't new.

I did not claim it to be new .. simply that Jackson had no involvement from Warner BROS on ..

The Return of the King came out 17 December 2003 .. Jackson was not working on it in 2011
post #5334 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

All I'm suggesting is Jackson himself apparently had no involvement from Warner on ..

Maybe but at the same time the Sound And Vision article claims that he did set the record straight by saying FOTR looked as intented.

oh well… smile.gif
Quote:
I'll be 85 and browsing AVS someday and the same debate will, I guess, continue to rage .. wink.gif

Depending on your current age hopefully I'll still be around to check this thread as well biggrin.gif


fwiw, I enjoy LOTR EE on Blu-ray quite much. smile.gif
post #5335 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Maybe but at the same time the Sound And Vision article claims that he did set the record straight by saying FOTR looked as intented.

oh well… smile.gif
Depending on your current age hopefully I'll still be around to check this thread as well biggrin.gif


fwiw, I enjoy LOTR EE on Blu-ray quite much. smile.gif

I'd love to see that article, as I've never even seen reference to anything prior to this that stayed PJ himself has said anything about the blu rays looking as he intended.
post #5336 of 5568
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I'd love to see that article, as I've never even seen reference to anything prior to this that stayed PJ himself has said anything about the blu rays looking as he intended.

It's in the link provided by mgkdragn in post #5329

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/lord-rings-trilogy-extended-editions-blu-ray

Look at the bottom of the page in the comments, the article's author responds to one poster and says this: "I feel my remarks regarding the forums are legitimate in the sense that people were angry that "Fellowship" wasn't as sharp as the other two films, which was true, but that was due to technological changes that happened after the first film was completed. As for the comments regarding the extended versions and the color timing, it's my opinion and I always put that in my reviews. Many of the comments that were online regarding the color timing were made by people who hadn't seen the Blu-ray's yet and now that they've seen them, they've backed off their comments (at least at Blu-ray.com and AVS). Jackson has come out and stated that they look like he wanted them to, which is why I stated it was "much ado about nothing." Judging the look of a film based upon 1/24 of a second of a 3+ hour film is silly (in my humble opinion)."

Notice I previously said "claims". I know, just like you, that I've never seen, heard, or read an official statement from Peter Jackson (or Lesnie) saying, and confirming, that they color-graded the FOTR EE edition on purpose. My point, if there's any, is that it's excessive to call it a "mistakle" or an heresy simply because the film doesn't look like it did when it came out. Because we know that when the film came out, it didn't look like they wanted it to look either. I'm not trying to play the endless "you're right I'm wrong" card here, I actually don't care. What I'm saying is that numerous reports have said that FOTR was deliberately changed and these changes were approved by Jackson. Why haven't said it himself? I have no idea. Does he have to? I have no idea either. I understand the frustration, but I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt. In the end, I'm glad I own these films on Blu-ray that's for sure. Life's too short. smile.gif
post #5337 of 5568
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I've read everything involved with the Bill Hunt fiasco. He says he spoke to people close to the production of the disc, and that the color timing was what PJ wanted.

First, the color timing isn't the issue people are having with the disc. It's the green tint and the darkening of the image. The color timing, for the most part, is just fine. There is a difference. And even if he was talking about the green tint, that is still not proof. Bill Hunt's review was suspect and Robert Harris could barely see the green tint or the darkening of the image.

If someone has no issue with the disc, then that's fine, but there is still no proof that it is what Peter Jackson intended.

My proof? The movie looks very different and there is no proof that it was intentional on the part of Peter Jackson. I don't have to have proof of that, it's there. When a change is made in the movie world, when a movie is put on to disc, the onus of proof is not on the observer of the change, but rather those who made the change, that it is correct and intentional on the part of the film maker. No such proof exists.

Exactly. Also, keep in mind that in the supplements included in the original DVD EE release (and included once again in the newest BD EE release) PJ and Lesnie outlined extremely specifically how EXACTLY they intended certain portions to appear and the new blanket green tint on the BD versions completely contradicts their stated philosophy. THIS, for example. He says that in Hobbiton they had to specifically remove green to achieve their desired affect, yet the green tint added to the new BD release is in direct contradiction to every single thing Jackson and Lesnie speak in great detail about.... and it completely changes the perception of those types of scenes. They're on film saying "I did not want to do 'This' to such and such scene and here's why" yet on the BD release "This" was exactly what was done to those scenes.
post #5338 of 5568
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?
I'd say the extended cuts are better PQ-wise for all three films (including the color timing on the first film). Not a dramatic difference for 2 and 3 but it's there.
(jesus, will this debate ever die?)
post #5339 of 5568
I wouldn't call it a debate really. We have the reality of the situation, which most understand and except, and then we have the fringe claims of a few.
post #5340 of 5568
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