Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: WTF? LOTR on blu-ray only theatrical versions???

This is topic WTF? LOTR on blu-ray only theatrical versions??? 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=000736

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-27-2009, 05:14 PM:

Someone has to bitch-slap New Line. They must have balls the size of the two towers to think they can double-dip LOTR fans again on another format. If you aren't aware they are releasing the Lord of the Rings Trilogy on Blu-ray but only the theatrical versions. Who in their right mind would buy the "incomplete" versions when they already have DVDs of the extended (full length) versions?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-27-2009, 06:03 PM:

LOTR fans are gullible enough to buy them twice, too! They won't be able to resist buying the shitty versions on Blu-ray, only to buy the slightly less-shitty versions when they are released. Star Wars fans, on the other hand, need to be treated exactly the opposite.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2009, 08:28 PM:

The theatrical versions ARE the complete versions. The "extended extra footage directors' cut" versions are the cash-in versions.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-27-2009, 09:27 PM:

Very old news. It's also widely known Warner Bros. (using the New Line Cinema handle) will release the extended cuts of the LOTR trilogy on Blu-ray when The Hobbit arrives in movie theaters.

Fans who prefer the extended cuts of the LOTR movies will just have to wait a few months longer. However, it's a good bet WB will reel in more than a few fans with the theatrical cuts on BD and probably get the same ones to buy again a few months later. That's business in Hollywood.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-28-2009, 10:31 AM:

How funny is it that LOTR fans refer to the original theatrical versions of the movies as "incomplete", while Star Wars fans would happily turn in their replica light sabers for the theatrical release of the original three movies on Blu-ray over Lucas's later re-edits?

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-28-2009, 12:32 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The theatrical versions ARE the complete versions. The "extended extra footage directors' cut" versions are the cash-in versions.

I have not seen all of these movies. I saw the theatrical versions of the first two. I am not some LOTR guru but I read and heard enough to know that by a wide margin the very dedicated fans of this series consider the extended editions far more desireable than the theatrical versions. I understand the first release being the theatricals and then following up with the extended release in a full blown special edition...ONCE!!!!

Mike - in my opinion this blu-ray release is the cash-in version.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-28-2009, 01:00 PM:

Everyone knows that Peter Jackson's movies are longer than they need to be.

So, why don't the die-hard fans just ignore the "incomplete" versions on Blu-Ray, keep enjoying your extended edition DVDs and wait for the inevitable, extended edition Blu-Ray release? It's not gonna kill you to wait. If it's really bothering you, how much will the "incomplete" version cost on Blu-Ray anyway? Work a couple of hours of overtime, offer to mow the neighbor's lawn a couple of times or whatever. Just buy the "incomplete" disc and calm down. You can always give it away to a friend when you buy the extended version and then "it's a win-win" when you make your friend happy, right?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-28-2009, 01:10 PM:

At least New Line/WB is being upfront with fans and saying that the extended versions are on the way. They did this with the DVD versions as well, and I think fans respected it. It also helped that the extras with the extended editions didn't overlap with the extras in the theatrical editions.

Knowing that the extended editions gives fans the informed choice about whether to pick up the theatrical box set that's coming out. The details on the extras are sparse right now, but the set hasn't been officially announced by the studio with complete details either.

While I'm sure that everyone would be happy with a mega box set that held both the theatrical and extended editions with seamless branching, and all the extras available everywhere about the movies would be included in the package (in HD, of course), and released this fall, that doesn't appear to be happening.

Sure, there's a little bit of a double-dipping money grab going on here, but at least the studio is being up-front about it. How many other releases were handled as well?

I think part of the problem with how Lucas handled the Special Editions of the original Star Wars trilogy was that he didn't give fans a choice. The theatrical editions were dead to him, and he wasn't going to let them be released. Understandably, fans were ticked at the lack of choice.

Funny thing is, Blu-ray has advanced home video to the point where you could (theoretically) configure your copy of Star Wars for:

Theatrical or Special Edition
Han shoots first
Jar Jar or No Jar Jar
etc.

These settings would be saved in your player as defaults, so you would never have to see Jar Jar if you didn't want to.

While Lucas will probably never do it, that would be kinda cool!

Personally, I've already pre-ordered the LOTR box set from Amazon. It's only $70 for three movies, for crying out loud! If doing it this way provides for a superduper Special Edition box set when The Hobbit is released, more power to them!
Doing it this way gets the movies released now instead of in a couple of years. I'm all for that.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2009, 01:19 PM:

quote:
I understand the first release being the theatricals and then following up with the extended release in a full blown special edition...ONCE!!!!

By that logic an older movie whose original home video release was on VHS tape would be "cashing in" by having a DVD version, or a Blu-ray version.
[Roll Eyes]

No one's arm is being twisted to buy the theatrical cuts of the LOTR movies. Despite claims made by certain LOTR fans who think they speak for everyone, I personally know people who like the shorter less-marathon like cuts more than the extended versions.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-28-2009, 01:32 PM:

Although I did purchase all of the extended versions of THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy on DVD, I must admit they are not my favorite movies and I do not have any intention of getting the Blu Ray in either theatrical or extended versions. I am very happy with what I already have because I love how regular DVD pictures look after they have been up converted to 1080i by my BD player.

-Claude

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-28-2009, 02:04 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
These settings would be saved in your player as defaults, so you would never have to see Jar Jar if you didn't want to.

I don't bother collecting DVDs, but if Lucas had an opt-out setting for Jar Jar, I would buy it.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-02-2009, 04:37 PM:

I "heard" about a version of Episode I titled "The Phantom Edit" which removed all of the Jar Jar scenes.

The result shows how superfluous his scenes really are, as removing them doesn't harm the storyline much at all.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-02-2009, 06:04 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The theatrical versions ARE the complete versions.

If that's true than the complete versions sure are missing a lot of stuff. I'd have to say that the theatrical versions are the versions that made the most financial sense to release in a theatrical setting. Three hour movies are hard enough to get by with theatrically. Four hour movies... Eh, from a financial perspective that's pretty tough to justify trying to pull off theatrically on a big budget blockbuster movie like LOTR.

I don't know anyone who likes the shorter versions better, but I don't doubt that those folks exist. That being said, there's no reason at all not to release both versions of each film on one disk with branching, unless the intention is to double dip. It might cost more to produce a single disk up front, but the added benefit of not having to maintain multiple SKUs down the road is a nice one to have.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-02-2009, 07:01 PM:

I enjoy both versions a lot...

I definitely find the Theatrical Fellowship to be more engaging and more exciting. It has, for me, a much greater sense of urgency than the Extended Edition.

I saw the Extended Fellowship in 35mm on a 78' screen recently and would pay $10 to see any of the cuts of any of the films on the big screen again.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-02-2009, 11:32 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
That being said, there's no reason at all not to release both versions of each film on one disk with branching, unless the intention is to double dip.

I'm not sure if seamless branching is possible with the two cuts because I could have sworn some different edit choices were made with the longer versions, particularly in the opening of Fellowship of the Ring.

Then there's the issue of the bit budget. If they squeeze the 4 hour 10 minute cut of Return of the King onto just one disc, even by itself without extras, the video quality may end up looking pretty soft like so many other movies on 25GB single layer Blu-ray discs. I really hope they spread the extended cut versions of the LOTR movies across two 50GB BDs, especially if WB/New Line throws in a bunch of Bonus View content.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-03-2009, 04:32 PM:

I agree about splitting the Extended Editions across two 50GB discs.

I don't recall off-hand how they did the disc transitions on the DVD's, but doing an intermission on a 3+ hour movie is a really kind thing to do as well as making sure that there are plenty of bits for the video.

Doing a little roadshow-type intermission music would be a classy way to handle the disc switch, IMO.

If anyone is here from New Line/WB, please give us an isolated soundtrack score track on at least one of these editions!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2009, 05:47 PM:

Why? Did anyone actually think the score was good? I can't even remember a single note! Just buy the soundtrack.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-04-2009, 11:29 AM:

The soundtracks for the movies are very good, and yes, I have purchased the soundtracks in many iterations.

From the IMDb:

The Fellowship of the Ring

Won, Oscar, Best Music, Original Score
Won, Grammy, Best Score Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media
Nominated, Golden Globe, Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Nominated, BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music

The Two Towers

Won, Grammy, Best Score Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media

The Return of the King

Won, Oscar, Best Music, Original Score
Nominated, BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music
Won, Golden Globe, Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Won, Grammy, Best Score Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media

All three "Complete Recordings" soundtracks have 5-star ratings on Amazon, and sell for $60-$70.

Including an isolated score track with the movie is something that I've been advocating:

http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1126

An isolated score allows you to enjoy the music in the context of the movie as another way to enjoy the purchase being made. With the convenience of Netflix and Blockbuster making rentals often a better choice than purchases, and downloads becoming increasingly more available and convenient to the mainstream public, anything that can be done to increase the value proposition of purchasing the Blu-ray is something I would think the studios and retailers would be interested in.

It would also widen the awareness and enjoyment of movie soundtracks, the impact of which on the movie experience is largely under appreciated.