Both the theatrical and extended Blu-rays of FOTR got criticized, though for different reasons. The last time I watched the theatrical version was long before the Blu-ray release so I can't comment on that. As for the EE, the green tint is only noticeable side to side comparisons with the DVD version. It's never been a problem or even noticeable when watching the film for me or anyone I know. There has not been another release since 2011 that affected the color correction (or anything else), but all versions of the films have been run through varying degrees of color correction. The bottom line is that the EEs look great in both DVD and Blu.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Been meaning to watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy, should I give it a go?
- Thread starter Boss Doggie
- Start date
- Status
Both the theatrical and extended Blu-rays of FOTR got criticized, though for different reasons. The last time I watched the theatrical version was long before the Blu-ray release so I can't comment on that. As for the EE, the green tint is only noticeable side to side comparisons with the DVD version. It's never been a problem or even noticeable when watching the film for me or anyone I know. There has not been another release since 2011 that affected the color correction (or anything else), but all versions of the films have been run through varying degrees of color correction. The bottom line is that the EEs look great in both DVD and Blu.
cjp
Junior Member
Ah, I see. Thanks for the info. I have the EE Blu Ray box set. It's the exact same as the more recent steelbook releases with the digital copies included?
Any idea on the difference between these two releases then? I want the theatrical copies too. They have different release dates listed (2010 compared to 2015), as well as number of discs (not sure if that's a typo). Packaging seems directly the same though and they're both sold directly by Amazon.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001SEQKJ2/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B013E4OWPC/
9 guys running for their lives is a helluva lot more tense than big battle after big battle.
As far as I know the steelbooks are the same, though I don't have a copy myself.
The six disc one includes bonus features on those extra discs, the three disc version does not have those extras. The product description seems to confirm this. I know the original Blu-ray release had extras but I guess they decided to issue a stripped down version this year. Note that these are not the same extras as can be found with the EEs (except in the stripped down, movie only EE releases). The theatrical versions come with their own set of bonus features that, while pretty good, do not even remotely compare to the EE set. Some of these features were originally produced for lordoftherings.net and can still be seen on the old version of that website.
http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_flat.html
cjp
Junior Member
Gotcha, thanks for your help!
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Original LOTR Trilogy > Original Star Wars Trilogy
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Okay so here's the game plan, one movie per day. That should help. I hope the one I saw in sale is EE.
Of course not, but I just need some sort of reference as I said.
Of course not, but I just need some sort of reference as I said.
I see the LOTR trilogy as more than just being a big fantasy epic with big battles and beautiful vistas. There's a genuine emotional core to the characters that really bad a big impact on me during some tough times I experienced when growing up - particularly the storylines of Frodo & Sam.
Also OP, the trilogy possibly has one of the greatest soundtracks of all time.
I'm torn on whether it's best to watch the theatrical or extended editions on first viewing. I think the theatricals have better pacing for a first viewer. The EEs are more of a bonus for the second viewer or book fans. The EEs do add depth to a couple characters that are neglected in the theatricals, though. They have that in their favor.
Also OP, the trilogy possibly has one of the greatest soundtracks of all time.
I'm torn on whether it's best to watch the theatrical or extended editions on first viewing. I think the theatricals have better pacing for a first viewer. The EEs are more of a bonus for the second viewer or book fans. The EEs do add depth to a couple characters that are neglected in the theatricals, though. They have that in their favor.
Sure thing. It's always nice to have an excuse to ramble about LOTR ephemera.
I used to go back and forth on this a lot but I have to agree with the sentiment. It's been a while since I've seen the SW OT though.
One movie a day over a weekend is my preferred way to watch the trilogy, although the EEs are so long that it requires a planning in advance for this to be possible, otherwise it can be much longer in between films until I find that much uninterrupted time. One of these days (years...) I'll get around to trying the 12 hour EE trilogy in a single day marathon thing.
Completely agreed about the soundtrack. I adore Howard Shore's work on these films. I tend to think that the EEs are better films than the theatricals due to the greater amount of character development and more detailed worldbuilding, but I do sometimes recommend the theatricals on a first watch if someone isn't completely sold on the idea of watching the films or if they don't like really long films. Boss Doggie seems fairly keen on the idea of watching LOTR already so I'd say so go for the (IMO) superior experience, but do keep in mind that the plot can take a while to really get going.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Absolutely.
Absolutely not.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Why aren't you at your post.
you've got a bad transmitter.
you've got a bad transmitter.
Dunedain_Ranger
Member
Do it for FRODO !!!!!!!!!
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Concerning Hobbits is one of my favourite tracks of all time. No matter where I am or what time it is, whenever I hear that track I'm happy.
https://youtu.be/sAb-fqBrUsY
Even if you argued ANH and ESB versus FotR and TTT(and you could), RotJ versus RotK easily swings it in LotR's favor.
Guys should I eat this delicious cake that's sitting right in front of me. I mean everyone else who has eaten it has said it was amazing... but I just don't know.
Seriously Doggie, watch that shit. I can't say for certain if you'll like it or not, but you should absolutely at least give it a chance.
Seriously Doggie, watch that shit. I can't say for certain if you'll like it or not, but you should absolutely at least give it a chance.
nah
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Just finished FotR, apparently I got the EE.
I don't see how it is boring, at all. The movie managed to hook me and they never actually lingered with talking or the scenery panning. It's good and from what I heard the later two are better, so this is stepping up the plate. Pretty enjoyable movie altogether.
Though I have some wonder why Gandalf didn't do his telekinesis shit on other moments like the goblin fights.
With that said... I now understand the eagle meme. Maybe I should not pursue it more though...
People also said spicy food is delicious but it's not for me
I don't see how it is boring, at all. The movie managed to hook me and they never actually lingered with talking or the scenery panning. It's good and from what I heard the later two are better, so this is stepping up the plate. Pretty enjoyable movie altogether.
Though I have some wonder why Gandalf didn't do his telekinesis shit on other moments like the goblin fights.
With that said... I now understand the eagle meme. Maybe I should not pursue it more though...
People also said spicy food is delicious but it's not for me
SiegfriedFM
Member
The awesome thing with the extended editions is that all the commentary tracks are worth listening to, so even without repeats you can watch the movie five times. And I've seen some of the behind the scenes stuff multiple times too.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Though FotR has some signs of aging like that CGI with the troll and the bridge.
Prophet Steve
Member
Just finished FotR, apparently I got the EE.
I don't see how it is boring, at all. The movie managed to hook me and they never actually lingered with talking or the scenery panning. It's good and from what I heard the later two are better, so this is stepping up the plate. Pretty enjoyable movie altogether.
Though I have some wonder why Gandalf didn't do his telekinesis shit on other moments like the goblin fights.
With that said... I now understand the eagle meme. Maybe I should not pursue it more though...
People also said spicy food is delicious but it's not for me
Plenty of people who don't think the other movies are better, but they are much bigger in scale.
The way Lord of the Rings was written, being should not abuse their power. I don't think there is an explicit explanation.
The eagles thing remains moronic, the entire goal is to stay out of sight. Also, the air isn't safe at all but I'm not sure if that is in the first movie.
And although parts of LOTR are definitely aging, the troll always looked bad.
Rewatched the EEs on Blu-ray recently, on a 47" TV, the CGI still holds up IMO.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
What happens if someone sees the 3 hobbit films and then watches the LOTR? Will you enjoy LOTR more if you experience it chronologically?
I want to know the quality of the hobbit films if you dont have LOTR as a frame of reference.
I want to know the quality of the hobbit films if you dont have LOTR as a frame of reference.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Water is wet bro.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
They're using a different actor for Bilbo in Hobbit right?
Old Bilbo is the same actor. Young Bilbo is Morgan Freeman.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
So in a way, Hobbit trilogy is like Star Wars prequels?
blitzkrieg184
Neo Member
First of all, yes. Second, PotC is gory?? The hell? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong...
Glad to hear you liked FOTR, man. It's my favorite of the trilogy but the others have their strengths too. Curious to hear what you make of them all.
Yeah, that comparison has been made a lot and while I don't think the first two Hobbit films were quite that bad, I think it's a valid one.
Yeah, that comparison has been made a lot and while I don't think the first two Hobbit films were quite that bad, I think it's a valid one.
The difference for me is George Lucas came up with the Star Wars universe. Peter Jackson adapted a very popular novelization. That's a much greater achievement IMO.
The One and Done
Member
You must be a medical marvel what with your HEART OF STONE
I instantly cross anybody who makes gay jokes about Sam and Frodo off my Christmas card list.
Are you kidding me? People did that? WTF
Team Alucard
Banned
but those are the best parts.
how can you not love Sam's speech at the end of Two Towers? =(
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
My only gripe is that the fellowship only had one action scene together. Was hoping for another one.
Skellig Gra
Member
There were some questionable spots even when it came out but anything cgi will age eventually. It really shines with the practical effects.
Which doesn't make it a better trilogy to watch and that is what I care about.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Considering Lucas used Lord of the Rings as a big source of inspiration, (Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon as well, among others) his "coming up with an original story" for Star Wars/Empire/Jedi only carries so much weight in the face of the execution of those stories.
It's not like adapting Lord of the Rings into three films is somehow easier than making up an entirely new (derivative) story, either. Both have their unique challenges.
What matters is whether the stories were executed well. Both were. But Lord of the Rings was executed much better in almost every way that you can measure such things.
They're just better made, more involving films on the whole.
It's not like adapting Lord of the Rings into three films is somehow easier than making up an entirely new (derivative) story, either. Both have their unique challenges.
What matters is whether the stories were executed well. Both were. But Lord of the Rings was executed much better in almost every way that you can measure such things.
They're just better made, more involving films on the whole.
Sabercrusader
Member
I'll lend my voice to the crowd that's telling you yes.
These movies, and by extension, this story, are absolutely essential for anyone who enjoys fantasy. Even if you end up not liking them, I would still argue it's one of those things you watch/read just to be able to say you did.
Don't marathon them though, I can binge watch a lot of stuff, but Lord of the Rings ain't one of them. I suggest making it at least one of the movies a day, if not put a couple days or more in between. Let's you sit down and process all of the stuff it goes over (Because believe me, there is a lot).
Most of all though, sit back and enjoy not only one of the best book-to-film adaptations ever of arguably the quintessential fantasy story.
These movies, and by extension, this story, are absolutely essential for anyone who enjoys fantasy. Even if you end up not liking them, I would still argue it's one of those things you watch/read just to be able to say you did.
Don't marathon them though, I can binge watch a lot of stuff, but Lord of the Rings ain't one of them. I suggest making it at least one of the movies a day, if not put a couple days or more in between. Let's you sit down and process all of the stuff it goes over (Because believe me, there is a lot).
Most of all though, sit back and enjoy not only one of the best book-to-film adaptations ever of arguably the quintessential fantasy story.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked