Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lord of the Rings DVD

This is topic Lord of the Rings DVD in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000055

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 07-21-2002, 05:26 AM:

I hope this is the right section to ask this in.

As Lord of the Rings was shot in Super35, which version of the DVD are you going to buy (if any). Full screen, or widescreen (don't get offended that I even asked :-)

Normally, I like the widescreen versions of movies, but I have never really bought a full screen DVD for a Super35 movie.

On a side note, as these are the only LoTR movies ever made, and I doubt anybody will try to make a new version for a LONG time, wouldn't it have been great if they could have shot it in 65mm scope instead of Super35? Not even using a full 35mm frame of film is dumb IMHO.

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 07-21-2002, 06:19 AM:

Every DVD I buy, I try to make sure it is in the orginal theatrical aspect ratio (or the closest the studio tries to do) and the discs must be anamorphic if it is not Academy Frame or Full Frame. I have a Hi Def TV that is 16x9 aspect ratio. Those anamorphic disc look awesome on it. Non-anamorphic "widescreen" movies are just matted to their aspect ratios and must be zoomed in on to fill the screen and those look like

. Call me spoiled. Now if the Blue Laser DVD players would hurry up...

Oh yeah, what is this thread again? I will buy the Super Deluxe Ultimate Collectors Edition of the Director's Cut of LOTR when that comes out in November, not the watered down version in August. The Novemeber box set will be in Anamorphic widescreen only.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 07-21-2002, 11:02 AM:

I'll be buying the collectors edition also, i dont buy alot of DVD'S , only all time fave's and very special editions!.
When choosing DVD's i try to purchase widescreen anamorphic (i have a widescreen tv), i hate it when they release 4:3 dvd's when in the cinema it was projected as 1:85:1, i understand that they shoot full frame(most of the time) but they should release them as widescreen, which might encourage people to upgrade to widescreen tv's!.
Jim , have you not seen the animated versions?, i believe that ralph bakshi did LOTR and i'm not sure who did "the hobbit", we used to screen these at the lumiere cinema in perth, it always attracted a good crowd!

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-21-2002, 11:27 AM:

quote:
i understand that they shoot full frame(most of the time) but they should release them as widescreen, which might encourage people to upgrade to widescreen tv's!.

Exactly! I was appalled to be walking through a Wal-Mart (I am always appalled when in Wal-Mart, heh) and saw an entire rack of Harry Potter DVDs... in FULL FRAME!! They had maybe 3 widescreen copies, behind that locked glass thingy. Since most people either don't care or "hate those black bars that cut off the picture" I think we can look forward to stepping backwards to pan-and-scan and having to dig for widescreen DVDs. At least in your typical corporate discount department stores.
Reminds me of when I heard my economics professor say, "...but I won't buy a DVD player until they do something to fix those annoying black lines! " I just had to interrupt and point out her stupidity...

=TMP=

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-21-2002, 11:27 AM:

Over at www.moviepoopshoot.com , Robert Meyer Burnett, who worked on the LOTR DVDs, said that none of the content, including the cut of the film is the same on either set. So if you buy the 2-disc set now and the 4-disc set later, it'll be like having one big 6-disc set. Not that this movie deserves 6 discs, but still...

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-21-2002, 02:55 PM:

I enjoyed LOTR, but I really don't see a need to see it again, until the directors version comes out, and then I will just rent it. It was good, but not good enough to really own, AFAIAC.

I agree that the Blue Laser DVD's need to hurry up already. I own a 70 dollar dvd player, and no dvd's. No need to buy technology that is just going to be outdated in a year.

Dave

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-21-2002, 03:36 PM:

If one buys the "full frame" version of LOTR just because it was shot in Super35, they will be disappointed. Even though some of the live action shots may show more image on top and bottom (with the sides still trimmed a bit) all of the CGI work and other effects shots are made in 2.35:1. So all of those shots will be as heavily panned and scanned as any anamorphic shot film.

You also have the additional problem in that "full frame" versions are made only for use with standard NTSC televisions. It would be pretty aggravating to watch a 1.33:1 framed show on a widescreen television with grey bars at the sides, especially when you know there is an anamorphic enhanced widescreen version available and well suited to widescreen televisions.

Buy the OAR widescreen version and let the "full frame" one rot on the shelf.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-21-2002, 03:49 PM:

When DVD was announced, one of the big selling points was that it could include BOTH widescreen and pan-and-scan versions on the SAME disc. Releasing two separate versions just confuses people who don't know better, and even worse is the labeling of "Fullscreen" or "Standard" formats.
BTW why don't they make "Fullscreen" versions of movies for theatres with top masking?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-21-2002, 04:02 PM:

Don't get me started...

...I'm willing to bet that the LOTR series becomes more infamous than STAR WARS or EVIL DEAD for having multiple versions...

...Just wait until the trilogy is complete and the various box-set manifestations are released.

BTW, I read that you can now purchase a box-set of RESERVOIR DOGS where it's just copies of the same disc in different cases, each with a single character from the movie on the cover.

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 07-21-2002, 05:10 PM:

Brad, I have heard of animated version of The Hobbit, but I have never heard of an animated version of the LoTR trilogy.

Unfortunately for me, I only have a 35 inch 4:3 standard def tube TV (bought in 1994). Great picture for what it is, but the picture is really small when showing anamorphic movies. I just started working up in the booth about 3 months ago, but I am still making $6.75/hr (min wage in CA). I am working Usher on the weekends and Projection on the weekdays (they want the more exp guys working the booth on the weekends). And no, I never work a Usher/Booth shift. It's either one or the other. Anyway, at $6.75/hr, I can't afford to pay my parents room and board, AND save for a HD 16:9 TV (life isn't fair). I think when I get into the USAF after I am done with school (my goal), I will make enough money to buy some decent equipment. By the time I retire, I will have my own screening room :-)

Oh yeah, from what you guys are saying, I think I will just forget the fact that LoTR was shot in Super35, and buy the Widescreen version (just wish I had a bigger TV everytime I buy a Widescreen version of anything).

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-21-2002, 08:42 PM:

Putting both WS and P&S versions on the same disc is a bad idea because of the compression involved. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but if a movie starts to get long, you're in trouble.

As for the whole "It 's Super 35 so full frame's OK" thing, you may be gaining information, but you're losing composition. Widescreen's always better (unless you're James Cameron) I have a 32" 4:3 TV, and that's good enough for someone with no money. When I was in high school, I used to watch widescreen laserdiscs on a 13" monitor. I would still prefer that to watching something in full frame on a 32" TV.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 07-22-2002, 03:47 AM:

having both a p/s and widescreen versions of the film on a single disc doesn't involve compression. Just use both sides.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2002, 10:19 AM:

IMHO, the original theatrical release format "defines" the preferred aspect ratio, as that was the primary composition used by the director and cinematographer when the movie was made.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-22-2002, 11:11 AM:

Putting one version on each side of a disc does involve more compression because, in a practical situation, each side can only be single layered. Because of this, you can only fit about half of the information on one side of a double-sided disc as opposed to one side of a single-sided disc. Of course, it is possible to make dual-layer/dual-sided discs, but this is costly. That's why the initial release of the T2 special edition was one disc, but later versions were 2 discs (there's also that whole perceived added value thing).

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-22-2002, 01:14 PM:

I'll just say that I HATE it when I get a 2-disc set where both discs are 1-sided. It's a 2-sided medium so use BOTH sides!!

Posted by John Moriarty (Member # 1153) on 07-22-2002, 01:32 PM:

The discussion of wide-screen v. full-screen is all very well (I would always go for cinema format, but the UK release doesn't give an option so it doesn't matter). The big question however (at least with a few people I know) is whether to buy the standard (2 disc) edition now or wait for the directors cut (4 disc) version. I would probably have waited for the directors cut but, the film (being >20 minutes longer) isn't on a single disk but two, hence requiring disk change part way through which would be very annoying.

What are your thoughts?

John

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-22-2002, 02:23 PM:

Has there ever been a dual-layer/dual-sided/dual-disc set? That would be cool. But it would also be more expensive to make than a dual-layer/single-sided/four-disc set.

As for the whole theatrical cut vs. extended cut issue, I personally go with whatever the director's preference is. He's the artist. We should watch it the way he wants us to, good or bad. If it's bad, then we can talk about how big of a moron he is, but we, as viewers, should follow his wishes when viewing his art. It shouldn't be some sort of interactive medium.

And I don't think having to swap discs during a 3 1/2 hour movie is that big of a deal. It's an excuse to pee. Laserdiscs had to be flipped over every hour.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-22-2002, 03:01 PM:

There was one set that I know of that used two DVD-18's (2 sided with dual layers on each side), something about "The 20th Century" from MPI Video- it seems to already be out of print; it was one I meant to get but waited too long. I think DVD-18s are neat; I cringe whenever I read people saying "I'd rather have a 2-disc set so they can put a printed label on them!"

Posted by Jim Leko (Member # 1287) on 07-22-2002, 06:05 PM:

Another question...

How much extra room is needed to put a DTS 6.1 soundtrack on a DVD? The Special Edition of LoTR will carry one, and the movie will be 2 discs, instead of 1 (also 30 min of extra footage). I am wondering if they will use less compression on the special edition, as they are adding a little more movie/soundtrack, but using a whole 2nd disc.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-22-2002, 06:10 PM:

You know, as much as everyone goes ga-ga over DVD special editions with "extra footage" that in *most* circumstances was cut for good reason, am I the only person who thinks that Hollywood is losing money by not releasing such a version to theaters? In the LOTR instance, all they need to do is print up a few hundred of these prints, book them into prime theaters in ALL large towns (not just NY and LA) and let them play for 30 days with no booking extensions (ahem, cough, cough, Mr. Lucas).

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-23-2002, 11:12 AM:

Brad, that idea makes even more sense in the case of LOTR, where I bet tons of people would want to watch the first movie again a week or so before the Two Towers is released.

Posted by John Daily (Member # 1362) on 07-24-2002, 11:02 PM:

quote:
BTW why don't they make "Fullscreen" versions of movies for theatres with top masking?

Didn't Kubrik do this? I'm pretty sure "The Shining" was filmed like this.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-02-2004, 02:51 AM:

Moving this one WAY up....

I watched both Fellowship and Two Towers extended versions on New Year's Eve. The extra footage really helped the storylines tremendously. Oddly enough, my wife is now hooked on these films...........

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2004, 03:39 AM:

Ha! (See my post a few steps up.) [Big Grin]

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 01-03-2004, 02:47 PM:

John, some of the Kubrick DVDs are in wrong formats. THE SHINING, EYES WIDE SHUT and FULL METAL JACKET were composed to be shown in cinemas either masked for widescreen 1.85 (U.S.) or 1.66:1 (Europe). The opening titles that this 1.37:1 DVD format is correct are nonsense. Here's more about the format on THE SHINING:

The SHINING helicopter shot / 1.85 wide screen

If you run THE SHINING on DVD, switch to cinema mode (cropping to about 16:9 which is between the two widescreen cinema formats), and you will notice that the picture composition makes much more sense. That goes, BTW, also for THE KILLING which was shot to be compatible with both 1.37 and wide screen projection.

Jim Leko wrote

quote:
Brad, I have heard of animated version of The Hobbit, but I have never heard of an animated version of the LoTR trilogy.

Well, there was the 1978 animated feature film directed by Ralph Bakshi which covered the first two books, but the second part was made as a TV animation film only, so it would be fair enough to say that the whole trilogy has been filmed in animation.

Lord of the Rings (1978)
the Return of the King (1980)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2004, 04:55 PM:

I seem to recall Stanley Kubrick making demands to Warner Bros. to present his movies on DVD in 1.33:1.

quote:
I'll just say that I HATE it when I get a 2-disc set where both discs are 1-sided. It's a 2-sided medium so use BOTH sides!!

Spoken exactly like someone who has a single disc machine. I very much prefer single sided 2-disc (or more) DVDs. With all dual sided DVDs you must go to the player, eject the disc and flip it over. I have a 5-disc Pioneer DVD changer. It is much more convenient to load up a pair or more of DVD-9 discs and be able to switch between them. The LOTR special editions are well designed to this, given the 2nd disc of the films have little of that FBI garbage you have to chapter past.

As far as I have been able to tell, there are no dual side play DVD players. That would take two sets of laser pickups (or four if you have a player like mine which uses separate pickups for CD and DVD content).

Then you have the issue of DVD-14 and DVD-18 replication. Such discs have significantly larger error rates in production than dual layer DVD-9 discs. And they cost quite a bit more to produce.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-04-2004, 07:35 PM:

quote:
That would take two sets of laser pickups...

Or use the "flip-over" reader like in LaserDisc players.

>>> Phil

Posted by Liam Utley (Member # 1931) on 01-31-2004, 09:24 PM:

In 15 years time when nearly evey TV will be widescreen, do you think that they will label anamorphic dvd's as full screen?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-08-2004, 07:48 AM:

quote:
The LOTR special editions are well designed to this, given the 2nd disc of the films have little of that FBI garbage you have to chapter past.

Does anyone know if there is ANY way to by-pass all that header junk and force the player to start the movie AT THE MOVIE? I mean, I would like to even be able to pass all those animated menus that the DVD creators think are so clever. I have a curtain in front of the screen (projection video) and want to get as close to a theatrical feel as I can by opening the curtain at the start of the movie. I have gotten so frustrated at not being able to start at the first frame of the movie. The only solution I could come up with was to buy a little 8in TV that I use as a monitor just so I can see when all the gack is passed and I can then switch on the signal to the video projector so my audience sees only the film and not the FBI grabage (hey, I bought the freakin disc, damnit, so why am I forced to sit through 30 seconds of an ugly big red screen of mood-distroying, presentation-marring FBI crap?). I have thought of actually burning a DVD and cutting out all the junk and starting it at the film proper. I understand there is software out there that can do that (although you have to get the product that is still on vendor's shelves because the software company has a lawsuit on them brought by our good friends at the MPAA that enjoins them from shipping any more).
And I am sure we all catch that irony -- the the FBI warning about how it's illegal to copy the DVD which forces the owner to COPY THE DVD?!!

As for providing full-frame versions of scope films for theatres that can't actually show a film the way it was intended, i.e., in Scope but use top masking.....NO. NO. NO! Theatres that can't show a film the way the director composed it shouldn't be permitted to book it. Scope films are intended to be shown 2.39:1. Period. They also were intended to be show larger than non-anamorphic films, rather than letterboxed.

Disney did this with the rerelease of FANTASIA. There has to be SOMEWHERE in the world of cinema where what the director put on the film and wanted the audience to see is actually what the audience sees! There certainly in no guarantee of this in the world of video. Let's not move that vaguery and easy disregard of the director's/cinematographer's vision into the movie theatre as well.

I am equally as adament about using print reductions for 1.37 presentations. If the theatre can't afford to buy, rent or swap the correct lens and aperture plate to present a film shot in 1.37, then maybe they should get out of the theatre business and run a fast food establishment. Catering to those marginal theatres that are not committed to proper presentation by making special compromise prints for them just so they don't have to outfit themselves with the proper equipment, is wrong-headed. Let's keep the theatre as the last bastion where films can be seen properly, untampered, and, like Donald Sutherland says in the orange juice commercial, "unfooled around with."

Brad is right on the money about all that "added footage not seen in theatres" that they throw into the DVD. It wasn't seen in theatres because it was EDITED OUT. Hel-lo!! And it was edited out for a reason....the Director thought it shouldn't be there.

Scenario: DVD "author" prepairing for the DVD release to his assistant -- "Hey Jack, do me a favor; go into the editing room and bring back any footage you find in the garbage pails or on the floor...we're putting together the "Special Edition."

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-11-2004, 05:23 PM:

I understand in some situations that the directors themselves have a full cut of their movie, but the studios want a cut that's 20 minutes shorter because it will sell better, so it becomes a game what to cut out, what to leave in, what to shorten, what's "unnecessary", etc. Not all footage removed from a movie was taken out because it was crap; or, theoretically, the director wouldn't have SHOT it in the first place. Sure, there are exceptions all over the place ... the studios INSISTING that the DVD release have extra stuff that the director explicitly DIDN'T want left in, the director realizing that the movie flows better without a sequence that was the best thing he ever shot, etc.

I'm one to buy anamorphic widescreen DVD's exclusively, but I try not to get on the case of people who seem to prefer fullscreen without "those annoying black bars". Yes I cringe at the notion, but then they cringe at the black bars, as unenlightened as they may be.

If it's a matter of them not seeing the movie the way the director intended, then it's no different than burning mp3's of a CD or adjusting the EQ on your stereo ... it won't sound the way the artist, producer, and mixer intended; it's a matter of personal preference. And if the listener/movie-watcher doesn't know how to appreciate a film or music the way they were intended, then it's his own loss.