LOTR Blue Ray

Systems

Boy, just don't know what their thinking is on this, releasing the theatrical version instead of the extended version......

I can see by comments I'm not alone on this....

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Picture-Theatrical-Editions/dp/B000X9FLKM/ref=amb_link_84139171_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-1&pf_rd_r=19G57Y3HKK6KRGTSRWGA&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=474037711&pf_rd_i=193640011

wingnut4772

They'll make more money that way. Sell the theatrical now then sell the extended version to fanboys again later. Makes sense to me.

BlueFox

You could argue they are being artistcally accurate by releasing the theatrical version. I remember when Star Wars fans were complaining about George Lucas releasing a modified version of the films instead of what was originally released.

Of course, the bottom line is I doubt if they give a crap about artistic integrity, and are, as mentioned above, after the max dollar return.

danz1906

wingnut4772 wrote: »

They'll make more money that way. Sell the theatrical now then sell the extended version to fanboys again later. Makes sense to me.

Agreed!

Sherardp

Give me LOTR, Gladiator, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Star Wars, and a few other titles and I'm good. So many promises and none delivered. It was better when there was the format war. Sorry to derail your thread OP.

comfortablycurt

wingnut4772 wrote: »

They'll make more money that way. Sell the theatrical now then sell the extended version to fanboys again later. Makes sense to me.

That's exactly how they'll do it. It's about making money. Everyone will buy the theatrical versions now, then they'll also buy the extended editions when they release them eventually.

I agree though...what were they thinking? The extended editions are WAAAY better.

Ron-P

Sherardp wrote: »

Give me LOTR, Gladiator, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Star Wars, and a few other titles and I'm good. So many promises and none delivered. It was better when there was the format war. Sorry to derail your thread OP.

How many 1000's of Blu-ray's are out now in how short of time? Seriously, they cannot release all titles in a couple of years. BTW, you forgot Tombstone!

As for LotR, I'll be waiting for the EE's, I'm not spending $70 now only to spend that same amount or more in a couple of years. Besides, the theatricals are incomplete films.

ESavinon

He'll be releasing the extended edition along with the hobbit trilogy in a six bluray box set.

cheddar

Ron-P wrote: »

How many 1000's of Blu-ray's are out now in how short of time? Seriously, they cannot release all titles in a couple of years. BTW, you forgot Tombstone!

As for LotR, I'll be waiting for the EE's, I'm not spending $70 now only to spend that same amount or more in a couple of years. Besides, the theatricals are incomplete films.

Agreed, they did exactly the same thing with the DVDs, IIRC. Released the extended only after a lot of people bought the theatrical. At least we don't have to deal with full screen/wide screen any more. And with blu-ray, they should be able to put both versions on the same disk. We shouldn't have to choose which version to buy.

As far as waiting for my favorite movies, I actually don't mind, as long as they're working on remastering them for better video/audio. Many movies have digital masters that were made for DVD release. And although they are high definition, they may contain artifacts that don't show up for DVD but would be annoying to watch in 1080p. So rather than rush films out, I don't mind if they spend a lot of time going back to the original print and making sure they get it right for the blu-ray release. Otherwise, we'd just be paying for the 'fully restored' version as another form of double dipping. Waiting for marketing reasons for the Hobbit would be pretty annoying...If they wanted to do this, I would think it would be better to just release a fully remastered extended+theatrical version of each film every 3 months building up to the Hobbit's release. Fans get rewarded earlier with the right version and the Hobbit still gets the publicity.

hockeyboy

Man the theatrical version was like 4 hours. I can only imagine the extended being 6. I'll pass on both man- just sayin.

Erik Tracy

I will most likely hold out until the extended versions become available....there were too many plot and character 'sacrifices' in the theatrical versions that were somewhat ameliorated in the extended versions.

And I'll admit, that while a book 'purist', there were some mind blowing scenes - both visually and emotionally - worth the wait.

Erik "Tolkien nerd" Tracy

comfortablycurt

Erik Tracy wrote: »

I will most likely hold out until the extended versions become available....there were too many plot and character 'sacrifices' in the theatrical versions that were somewhat ameliorated in the extended versions.

And I'll admit, that while a book 'purist', there were some mind blowing scenes - both visually and emotionally - worth the wait.

Erik "Tolkien nerd" Tracy

Agreed completely. I've read The Rings trilogy 4 times...in fact I just finished reading through it again about a week ago. There was a lot left out of the theatrical versions that gets fixed in the extended editions. There's still a lot missing, such as the entire end of the story:rolleyes:, but they're still damn good. Most books turned into movies end up being really bad, that definitely wasn't the case with The Rings.

Erik Tracy

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Agreed completely. I've read The Rings trilogy 4 times...in fact I just finished reading through it again about a week ago. There was a lot left out of the theatrical versions that gets fixed in the extended editions. There's still a lot missing, such as the entire end of the story:rolleyes:, but they're still damn good. Most books turned into movies end up being really bad, that definitely wasn't the case with The Rings.

Only 4?

Just teasin'....

As a self-proclaimed purist 'snob' - it did take some time for my elitist attitude to mellow a bit.

Overall, the film legacy is better than alot of book to movie epics. Some major 'themes' of Tolkien seemed to have been...ahhh....adjusted to fit the mold of 'it has to work for the sake of cinema' - but, well, there you are.

Shameless plug for my dusty ancient and rarely visited Tolkien website.

Gotta go clean the gutters...

Erik

comfortablycurt

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Only 4?

Just teasin'....

As a self-proclaimed purist 'snob' - it did take some time for my elitist attitude to mellow a bit.

Overall, the film legacy is better than alot of book to movie epics. Some major 'themes' of Tolkien seemed to have been...ahhh....adjusted to fit the mold of 'it has to work for the sake of cinema' - but, well, there you are.

Shameless plug for my dusty ancient and rarely visited Tolkien website.

Gotta go clean the gutters...

Erik

Yes...only 4 times.:p When you take into account the fact that I'm only 22, and read it for the first time when I was 18 though...it puts it into perspective.;)

Like you said, as far as book-movie transfers go, I think LOTR was one of the best I've seen. There were a lot of crucial parts that they left out to make it fit better within their time constraints. Had they actually filmed out the whole story though, each of the movies would be around 12 hours long...lol I'd still watch them, but considering that, they did very well.

I didn't like some of the parts that they added to the movie either, such as -ahem- Sam turning around at Shelobs lair...that was dumb, and isn't at all how it happened.

Nice site by the way.

Ron Temple

My biggest problem with the LOTR films was the casting and changing of Frodo from a mature hobbit with growing leadership skills to a 20 year old that lacked the experience to show the grace and complexity of the character. It changed the dynamic between Frodo and Sam, from English gentleman/honored servant to almost a love fest where everyone was breaking out in tears. Half the time, I expected some Brokeback Mountain action to develop.

I understand that they wanted to attract a younger audience, but it still weakens the film for me.

Also, while I thought Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn was one of the strongest characters and performances in the films, he still didn't live up to my expectations of the character from the trilogy. After Gandalf he's the most striking character. He's always described as very tall, dark with the ability to appear extremely seedy, perhaps ugly, yet transform to noble and handsome. He also didn't have any self doubt. He was just biding his time until events brought about his restoration. While Viggo was kickass in the movie, the books portrayed him as even more of a dynamo (in my mind's eye).

I've already got the EE DVDs, I probably won't upgrade to BD. They are excellent transfers. Even BD EEs would be hard to justify.

Erik Tracy

Ron Temple wrote: »

My biggest problem with the LOTR films was the casting and changing of Frodo from a mature hobbit with growing leadership skills to a 20 year old that lacked the experience to show the grace and complexity of the character. It changed the dynamic between Frodo and Sam, from English gentleman/honored servant to almost a love fest where everyone was breaking out in tears. Half the time, I expected some Brokeback Mountain action to develop.

I understand that they wanted to attract a younger audience, but it still weakens the film for me.

Also, while I thought Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn was one of the strongest characters and performances in the films, he still didn't live up to my expectations of the character from the trilogy. After Gandalf he's the most striking character. He's always described as very tall, dark with the ability to appear extremely seedy, perhaps ugly, yet transform to noble and handsome. He also didn't have any self doubt. He was just biding his time until events brought about his restoration. While Viggo was kickass in the movie, the books portrayed him as even more of a dynamo (in my mind's eye).

I've already got the EE DVDs, I probably won't upgrade to BD. They are excellent transfers. Even BD EEs would be hard to justify.

Don't get me started!!!

Think about the big picture (bad pun intended) for what we have.

It could have been a lot worse.

If folks who saw the movie get interested in reading the books - cool.

But...I'm afraid that the movies are now considered 'canon' for the story....and there are some very significant differences in some very fundamental themes.

I am weary, still, from the ancient usenet wars from the long and distant past. I bear many scars and the nightmares still come at times to haunt my sleep.

I would much rather have a friendly talk over a beer than a brawl over the finer points of Middle-earth "history" and whether Balrogs have wings (they do not, of course!)

hockeyboy

"Half the time, I expected some Brokeback Mountain action to develop."

ROFL me too!

Ron-P

$64 preorder at Amazon and I did. I swore up and down I was going to hold out for the EE's but at that price, it's just too good to pass up. Yes, I'll buy the EE's too but I love these films too much to wait. They should look and sound amazing, so cannot wait for the 6th.

Demiurge

They don't look amazing.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99224

Ron-P

Ohhh, that sucks. I may have to cancel but I'll wait. Seems the PQ is better then the DVD, which was pretty damn amazing (for DVD). If that's the case, should still be pretty good, plus the lossless audio, that's just as important as the video and that should rock.

headrott

I'll wait for the extended versions. Bought both versions of the DVDs and I will not fall for it again. Thanks anyway, but I'll keep my money and get the the better versions (i.e. extended) when they come out.

Greg