Cookies on DVDActive
DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is assumed that you agree to this.
Leaderboard Extra
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Blu-ray)

Forums - Discs & Movies - The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Blu-ray) 


Message Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.
Not Registered?
Forgotten Details?
Additional Options These options are not required but may be useful.
Existing Posts
It's called business. Jesus.

I've now watched the first two in their entirety and TTT is a bit better than FOTR, which really does have some issues with DNR and lack of detail. Hopefully ROTK will be better again. The audio is great though. They're not total disasters by any means, but I agree with the majority of sites that said they're not the releases they should have been.
Deleted Member
Manda of Mu wrote: Chris Gould wrote: I really don't understand why people are getting so worked up about not having the EEs. They've been upfront about it - people have a choice to buy these or to wait.

Very easily. Blu-rays CAN include both versions of the film, there is no excuse not to include this film at all. To release the same damn movie a second time is retarded. Why am I being uptight? Because I don't want to have to wait ANOTHER two years so I can see this in HD.

I totally agree with you. Its pretty retarded..
Chris Gould wrote: I really don't understand why people are getting so worked up about not having the EEs. They've been upfront about it - people have a choice to buy these or to wait.

Very easily. Blu-rays CAN include both versions of the film, there is no excuse not to include this film at all. To release the same damn movie a second time is retarded. Why am I being uptight? Because I don't want to have to wait ANOTHER two years so I can see this in HD.
Found this reasonably cheap at ASDA yesterday. £11 for each film seperately or &32 for the lot.

I wasn't too fussed about getting these theatrical cuts but at just over a tenner each, I don't feel too ripped off.

With The Hobbit and the Extended Editions still a couple of years away, these will do in the meantime.

First impressions are quite good. I've only spot checked the first two.

The double for Elijah Wood/Frodo, as he rides with Gandalf at the beginning of FOTR, is all too apparent in HD now and Gollum's can, at times, seem a little removed from the scene, compostitionally, but on the whole, at a normal viewing distance, these are fine. I was expecting worse from the reviews I'd seen.

If I've learned anything from my last job (customer support for a video game company), its that nerds love to complain and display false senses of entitlement. I don't get it either. They are all talk though. I'm sure that 50-60% of the people who gave this trilogy 1 star reviews on Amazon went out and bought it the day it was released.

An example of this: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for PC was not going to have dedicated servers and tons of people said they were going to boycott it. Well here is one of those groups on Steam the day the game was released:

I really don't understand why people are getting so worked up about not having the EEs. They've been upfront about it - people have a choice to buy these or to wait.
I am still furious we got screwed out of the extended editions. I'm so mad at them that when the EEs finally DO come out (no doubt when The Hobbit is released to cash in on that) I'm just going to get it used on Amazon or eBay just so they don't get my dime. Screw them!
Thanks for the reply Chris.

I'm not going to bother advertising my mag here, but we clearly have a pretty similar opinion of coverage in more 'mainstream' titles (the one I work on is definitely a niche publication aiming at the mid- to high-end AV consumer). Oddly enough, the column I wrote for the issue currently on the shelves was actually devoted to the idea of ditching the 'film review' portion of disc coverage altogether in favour of devoting more space in our rather limited reviews section to looking at what really matters - the quality of the disc itself.

And don't worry, I didn't take your original comments personally - it's just been one of those days in the office, and I felt the need to vent a little.

As I said before, keep up the great work with the site. It may be 'just' a hobby for you, but all of the contributors on the site have an obvious passion for the industry that I just wish was replicated by all of the paid journalists working in the industry these days.
I don't know what magazine you work for so I can't comment on the specifics, but as a consumer I can safely say that none of the mainstream DVD/Blu-ray review magazines I've read provide enough detail about the A/V quality of the vast majority of titles. They mostly consist of lengthy film reviews (if I'm interested in a BD I probably already know a bit about the film), a summary of the extras, and a few cursory words about the audio and video. If your magazine is different then you are the exception to the rule and something I might actually be interested in reading. Maybe I should have used the qualifier 'generally'.

As for the LOTR check discs, according to my HE contact the majority of the print magazines failed to return them when asked to do so, and because of the limited number supplied to the UK market online magazines didn't get a look in. If we'd done that we'd never get another EiV title to review.

At the end of the day I only do this for a laugh as my hobby (I have an entirely different day job), so don't take my comments as professional criticism because I don't claim to be a professional - quite the opposite in fact Wink
I've only just stumbled across this thread, but I'd just like to thank Chris for the 'kind words' about print journalism.

Having worked in the industry for a little over a decade now, myself and the rest of the team at the magazine I work on happen to put a great deal of effort into the DVD and Blu-ray reviews we publish. Sure, it's not the same everywhere (there will always be more mainstream magazines that simply write reviews on having seen films theatrically and factoring in features based on what is written in press releases), but as a niche title tailored to the AV industry, we take the subject every bit as seriously as you surely do.

Admittedly, the very nature of print publishing means that we don't get to go into pages and pages of detail about every last aspect of a disc. But by the same token, we do focus on the aspects of a release that are of most interest to our readers - rather than simply trying to impress them with an endless Film Studies-style commentary about the movies themselves (not that this is something I mind, I'm a Film Studies graduate myself, and this type of discourse is precisely why I enjoy reading online reviews as well as their more concise print brethren).

And as for why magazines got the discs first - well you kind of answered that yourself. Magazines have much longer lead times than online content. So to meet a deadline that would see the review published around the same time as the discs ship to market, we'd need to get them about six weeks before the release date. While you chaps could probably still get a review up in time to meet the release date if you only received the discs a week before release. Surely it's only a problem if your sole concern is making sure you have the first review up online.

Anyway, sorry for the somewhat rambling response - but despite being an avid 'net user, I still believe that there is an important place for print journalism - and not just because I work in the industry. And keep up the good work with the site, it's always one of my first ports of call when I get into the office in the morning.
Actually, I'm more than happy with TT and ROTK, they look really good in HD, FOTR has it's flaws, but it's not as bad as first reported.

Manda of Mu: You'll have to wait a number of years for the extended editions to be realeased on BD, you know that, right?
Who cares, anyone with a brain isn't wasting their money on this set anyway.

With that said, I really hope the Extended Edition BDs (that will come out just in time for 'The Hobbit', watch) are better quality.
Your head just exploded Chris? Sounds serious... Wink
Sorry, I can't reply, my head just exploded. Doubt the UK discs will look better, although it has been known for EiV titles to have less DNR than the US equivalents (A History of Violence being one such title).
Well the UK R2 BD will benefit from the added resolution (625 lines as opposed to 525) but you'll have to put up with the PAL speed up if you want the best overall A/V quality.

Isn't that right Chris?

Or should I stop helping?Happy
Any chance of the UK discs looking better than the US ones?
Been reading about this for the last week or so. The word from more even-tempered people is that they're not as bad as some would have you believe, but I've compared them to 720p rips and they're not much better than that. Even so, they are considerably better than the DVDs from the still images.

EiV were supposed to be sending out review copies in the UK, but word has it that they only provided a very limited number and they went to magazines first (quite why I have no idea - print magazines are so far behind and their reviews suck). I doubt we'll ever see the copy we were promised.
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Blu-ray)
The first reviews are out and it's really bad I'm afraid. New Line sure loves DNR. Sad Video nerds are gonna be PISSED. Hampered by rampant, odious DNR (did Sauron have a hand in this?), and a lack of detail definition that makes some sequences look standard-def at best, these 1080p transfers are a nightmare for those who have been salivating for LOTR  on high-def. The films' video presence improve with each film - it's without reservation that I say Return of the King looks a trillion times better than Fellowship - but even there, for a flagship title like this one that should be knocking all other BDs out of commission, these presentations are exhausting, tragic disappointments. Color accuracy isn't air-tight - flesh tones are hazy and even some of the films' more saturated hues are guilty of unfortunate bleed - and detail as a whole is smeary at best: I was literally appalled at the lack of punch in some of Fellowship's early town sequences. Edge enhancement is rampant, to boot, and the handling of grain on this set is wildly inconsistent. Do the films look better here than they did on DVD? By a hair. But those expecting a nearly nine-hour reference-quality video presence will be devastated almost immediately.

My set has alredy shipped and I've been billed, so I can't do anything myself, but I can warn others...