Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lord of the Rings

This is topic Lord of the Rings in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=000225

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 12-09-2001, 03:57 AM:

I'm an outsider - I did not read the Tolkien books - and therefore i was punished: The Ring will not in any way let You inside, if You're not one of the chosen...

Big, noisy, violent 70 feet Play Station, giving the outsider nothing but fights and an endless struggle to remember names - so many names mentioned only so few times, that the non-book-addict has no chance at all to remember them.

And then 35mm on 70 feet - with lots of wide angle shots - that's tuff !

Positive: The most impressing soundtrack, i've ever heard - even though, local THX didn't prevent distortion when things really got goin'. -Those back-channel boxes were just about turning wrong side out, -and i don't believe, they ought to....

On my right side: 3 grown-up readers voted thumbs up
On my left: Both youngsters and growns - no books behind them - just the film, felt like me.

Much to much hype for a big budget splatter thing, that may flop or go right over the hill - I can't say. -But i'm looking foreward to hear myu audience next wednesday morning. -Everything is sold out and has been so for long - and they are all riding the hype, for sure...

Let's just hope !

Per

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2001, 06:56 PM:

Hasn't anyone seen this movie? Or is it just not significant enough to solicit opinions from anybody?

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 12-21-2001, 11:59 PM:

I was wondering that myself. So I guess I'll be the second one to comment. I really liked the movie. Definitely worth killing three hours of your time in my opinion. In fact, and I'm probably in the minority here, I thought it was better than the book.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-22-2001, 03:36 AM:

Ok Joe you want comments, here you go!

I liked it.

Pretty indepth review, eh? The impressive part about that one line review is that I normally do not like fantasy films. In fact, I do believe this is the first fantasy film I have ever liked. I also have never read the book, but had no real problem following the film (although I did have to nudge Dwayne who has read the book a couple of times to ask for a clarification on something). The sound was definitely very good. I did not get to hear it in EX, so unfortunately I cannot comment about that aspect of the mix, but someone did indeed do a nice job overall.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-22-2001, 11:35 AM:

Like Brad, I usually don't like fantasy movies. But I think I enjoyed this one.

*spoiler ahead* I haven't read the book, so I was kinda pissed when it just ended without resolving anything, but I'm over it now.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-22-2001, 09:53 PM:

But that's why there's two more

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-24-2001, 05:01 AM:

The move was pretty good, but not great. But that is because the movie was made to appease fans of the book, not necessarily to be a good movie on its own. I have not read the book nor do I ever plan to. Fans of the book already know the characters. But people like me do not. I kept mixing up the names Gandolf and Golem. The editing was rough and often had me asking "what da hell?" I didn't see any reason for that glowing white woman played by Cate Blanchette to be in the movie. But I guess it helps for the next movies. I bet that she doesn't get much sleep since she glows in the dark and would constantly be distracted by the bright light no matter what she does. Her effects when she turned evil looked awful. I was bored in the middle of the movie, and I never really came to care about any of the characters. The only character who seemed to have personality was one of the goatee dudes (the one that didn't die). Also I think they tried to incorporate too many "humorous quips" into the characters dialog. Also, it was predictable... "we're still in the Shire what could possibly happen?" Gee. What happens when ANYONE in ANY movie asks a question like that? Something happens immediately upon completion of the question. That gag needs to be retired.

The sound was mixed very well and some of the scenes were definitely cool looking. I loved the evil horsemen. I also liked all the other evil stuff except for the fake giant that attacked them (before the fire dude guy). He was defeated by computer animated people! I didn't feel like I was in the theater for 3 hours (except during the trailers) so I guess that's pretty good.

Was it just me, or was Elijia Wood's neck thicker than his head?

Posted by Christopher Santapaola (Member # 1015) on 12-25-2001, 02:56 PM:

Where was Tom and old man Willow?

Excellent movie but I wish there were more details from the novel. The characters were just about how I had envisioned them in my head but they seemed a little to random.

I would have liked to have seen more of the black forest and of the shire and some more depth to the culture of the Hobbits but this was just about as good as I think they could have done and kept the movie under 3 1/2 hours...

Total rating 9 of 10.

------------------
-Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that walks, and struts its hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2001, 05:09 PM:

I can only give the "From the booth" view with emphasis at the reel changes.

I am/was an avid reader of the Hobbit books so I knew the characters and the story.

As to the comment of where Tom (Bombadil) was (and the entities residing on that part of Middle Earth)...I can understand the cut in that one...it didn't help with telling the story and would have made the film longer without helping one understand the characters. As the others have noted, there are enough "new" people to learn without adding those that don't contribute to the "Fellowship"

With any fantasy book, what we all envision the characters and places look like are largely made up in our minds based on the descriptions in the book(s). As such we all will envsion different things. To that end, I think they did an EXCELLENT job...the characters and places look right and add or possibly change in a favorable way what I had envisioned.

I generally dislike narrators in movies and LOTR has one that mainly gets the newbie going. I can live with that though I see the newbie's frustrations in having to have a crash course in the world of Middle Earth and being confused.

One inexcusible failure is the lack of time line. We start out with Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday (111) and we have a picture of Bilbo and how he looks. Unless I missed it, there was no mention that Frodo's adventure begins some 17 years later! The problem I have with this is that Frodo looks like he hasn't aged (an insider would attribute this to the power of the ring) but when we meet Bilbo again in Rivendale, he looks significantly older! In the film, these events seem to be within a week or so of each other, certainly not years. First Bilbo leaves, then Frodo leaves. The only clue to the amount of time is Bilbo's aging.

Other than that, I would have actually like the film to be longer (and hopefully it will be in the DVD's Collector's edition) since one who loves the books will want yet more detail and the film seems to try and capture as much detail as time will allow.

As to the film's ending, it is much the same as the book...at the dessolution of the "Fellowship" the book ends. The next two parts will become much more complicated since we have several small groups doing different things that we must keep track.

I can tell you outsiders right now that the next episode "The Two Towers" will have less of an "ending" than this one. The only ending can possibly come after the third installment "The Return of the King" I think of the story as really 6-parts with each book as two parts. The ending isn't until the end of the 6th part. Figuring that it will take about 9 hours to tell the story...it would be a bit long for one sitting! Fortunately, the middle section "The Two Towers" is the shortest and probably the most boring for some and the most complicated for others.

I am surprised that they didn't try making THE HOBBIT first to see if the market was there (and it would have been). The Hobbit does a great job of setting up the feel of Middle Earth and is a complete story unto itself.

From what I have seen.... 4 out of 5 stars.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-25-2001, 09:25 PM:

How much can they fit on a single side of a DVD without sacrificing normal quality? I ask because this movie is 3 hours long and to add more scenes would take its toll on the compression quality, I am betting. Maybe Evans can answer this one.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2001, 10:58 PM:

I have purchased several DVDs now that have multiple discs. There are also the high-end discs available on some titles where the compression is kept WAY down to improve picture quality. Ebert even did a review of these. Coming from the Laserdisc era, disc swapping/flipping was never that big an issue. With a DVD, by the time the disc needs to be attended to, I'm sure a potty break will be in order.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-26-2001, 10:35 AM:

I assumed that the ring was keeping Bilbo young and when he left it behind he immediately began to age at an accelerated rate.

As for the DVD flipping/swapping, I watched Pearl Harbor last night and not only was the disc swap in just the right place (Roosevelt asks congress to declare war on Japan), but a nice intermission slide faded up instead of the usual "insert disc two" screen. It was the best part of the movie.

Posted by Paul Harnden (Member # 1034) on 12-26-2001, 02:06 PM:

I love Fantasy, just recently started the trilogy, and am seriously in love with this movie. Sure there are some things the director had to leave out or you'd prolly be looking at a 20 reel print (exaggeration). My rating is 9.9 out of 10.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2001, 09:07 PM:

Adam,

A reasonable assumption on your part. However, Bilbo just started to age naturally after the ring left him. The ring doesn't stop aging, just slows it down based upon usage. Since Bilbo didn't use the ring much (that we are aware of) he had only some age slow-down. Unlike other creatures that gained hundreds of years.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 12-27-2001, 12:56 AM:

Well I've finally taken the family to see this film, was not able to go to the cinema of my choice as it had sold out ,so off to my favourite Plex "Westgate Village 8" running in 3 auditoriums ,well I was impressed with the presentation (someone has spent some time here)did not notice too many splices and change over que marks (started looking for them)only noticed a jump once and a while ,still no que marks visible ?my children enjoyed it (though a little scary here & there)my wife hands to her mouth most of the time ,it was quite full on and not too many breathing spaces (or times to relax)abit like the Matrix as you had to concentrate on what was going on, I was waiting for Elf Man (I don't know his name) to say Mr Anderson ,as he used the same voice as in Matrix,looking forward to the second installment,but cheers to the presentation focus spot on (across the whole screen) Light even and bright ,sound DTS was just right .Film Done Right.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-27-2001, 03:58 AM:

A few years ago, I had the pleasure of working with Peter Jackson promoting one of his movies...Meet The Feebles. If anyone has seen one of his early films they would agree he made the most violent, disgusting and gross films ever made bar none.

Peter, however, is the most timid, unassuming people I have met in the industry and is a professional. Period.

I wish him all the best and congratulate him on an excellent piece of storytelling in bringing to the screen what must have been one of the most difficult adaptions in recent memory.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-27-2001, 07:18 AM:

Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive are the two best motion pictures ever created by man. Everyone should take their mother to see them! And not the sissy rated-R versions available at Lackluster Video ... get the unrated version.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-28-2001, 11:46 AM:

Lord of the Rings

Boring

I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly why. I can't remember a scene that wasn't well done and lavish. Great scenery great cgi. I didn't care much for frough dough. I guess he's suppose to be a wuss. Does he ever get any back bone later on? There's too many scenes of his big blue eyes being afraid and him wimpering about wanting to be left alone. It was also way too long and judging from the rest of the audience, they thought so too. Maybe the sequels will explain why you have to sit through the acres of repetitive stuff in this film.
I guess what this film reminds me of the most is a combat type video game. It seems to have no point other than to go from one conflict with one type of underworld bad guy to the next. They should have a point meter in the corner of the screen.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 12-28-2001, 03:08 PM:

Adam, i have to agree with you, I have enjoyed all of Peter Jackson's films. I can understand people not liking Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles (the most disturbing movie with puppets ever made), but you really can't beat the lawnmower scene in Dead Alive. (The finest gore film ever made in my opinion) Then Heavenly Creatures, one of my all time favorites, you must have a look at that one. The Frighteners, with Michael J Fox at his best, is one of the most underated films of the 90s. It's a fantastic old school sort of horror film, only with great special effects.

As far as Lord of the Rings is concerned, I really liked it. I haven't read the books either, and I had no problem following the plot or characters. They really do pack a lot of high points into a three hour movie though. I don't think the film could have been made better, but it still has some inherent problems, most of which are miostly forgiveable. CGI still looks like CGI, and the shrinking of the actors playing Hobbits was hard to get used to; it was pretty abvious that the scenes that involved hobbits and full-size actors were digitally manipulated and that the close up shots were not, making for some somewhat jarring cuts. Overall though, it was quite good. I have to give credit to a three hour film with 20 minutes of trailers that started at 10:15 that held my attention and didn't have me looking at my watch.

Posted by Paul Harnden (Member # 1034) on 12-28-2001, 03:18 PM:

Dead Alive....oh hell yes!

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 12-29-2001, 08:19 PM:

I just got back from seeing it in an absolutely packed house. I had to sit in the front row, but fortunately the beautiful curved screen had me feeling like I was sitting in an IMAX presentation and the picture was as sharp as a tack. The print was gorgeous and the showing was the best I've been to in a long time. I don't need to mention that the sound was astounding. I had read the books years ago, so it wasn't hard to follow the plot, but I can see where someone who hasn't read the novels might be confused by some of the names. I went in prepared to tear the film apart, but I honestly believe that it captured the character and color of Tolkien's work very well. As I watched, it was almost as if the mental images I had when I read the work originally were coming to life, so I thoroughly enjoyed his vision of the piece. When the film was finished, the audience actually stood up and applauded...and that's a RARE occurance here. I was intrigued by the subdued color in parts of it. Did they use the same silver process that was used in "Sleepy Hollow"? Some of it had that same look.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 01-03-2002, 09:50 AM:

Attendance: 2002/01/02 19:45, Carmike 10, Huntsville, AL, Auditorium 6, Scope, Dolby Digital/THX

I'm not sure why I waited so long to see this movie, but I'm glad I did. I got a showing that only had 30 to 40 people in it on a Wednesday night, in a 42 foot THX auditorium. I don't think I heard a single cell-phone or any distracting noises from anyone in there, which is extremely rare.

First, I've never read the books, so I was a bit worried that I would sit through a three hour movie that I wouldn't fully understand or enjoy. This movie, to me, will probably be a bit like the Star Wars movies. I never cared for the Star Wars movies until around 1997, then I loved them. Some movies take more than one viewing to fully understand and appreciate, and the Lord Of the Rings movies will probably be that way for me. There were lots of long-haired guys in the movie, and one or two of them could easily do drag and make great chicks. There was one in one scene that I had to study to figure out if it was male or female.

The sound was phenomenal. The clarity of the sound and the directional sound effects were excellent.

My heart sank a bit when the scope changeover occurred during the previews. After the changeover, the aperture plate was not in the proper position, causing the image to be about a foot and a half to the left, with the soundtrack visible a foot beyond the left screen edge and with the same amount of image blocked out on the right. I went out at the end of one of the previews, telling the audience I was going to get them to fix it, which they quickly did. I did not want to watch a 3 hour movie that way. What bothers me even more is that this happened the last time I saw a scope movie in auditorium 6 on August 24, 2001, and I'd hate to think that every scope movie has been shown that way since then.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 01-28-2002, 03:53 PM:

Regal People's Plaza 17, House #11, Dolby SRD.

As my grandmother used to say, a very expensive way to take a nap.

The thing I enjoyed most about this movie was finding $3 in my pocket (in quarters), walking out of the theater, buying a soda and walking back in. (Drink it slowly, John. Make it last.)

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-14-2002, 07:00 PM:

3/14/2002, Cinemark 17, Springfield OR, #3, DTS. Excellent presentation, sharp, bright, steady, very good sound. About 25 people there. Print still looks like brand new (the theater GM says this print is 1 of the original 3 they received on the movie's opening day). Super-35 image is quite grainy sometimes.

Saw it again today, with a group who all wanted to see it once more before it leaves theaters (they are all game developers: graphic artists and programmers, and they are in awe of this movie). My 3rd time. Still holds up very well for me. I hope this wins some awards. And that's all I have to say about that.

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 03-15-2002, 08:27 AM:

Shoulda waited til' the 29th for the replacement reel with the preview of the next installment. Supposedly it was pushed out to a thousand more theatres this week too make some cash from the nominations and publisize the new footage.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-06-2002, 06:27 PM:

Well, the DVD of LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring arrived in stores today. Lotsa people snapping up losta copies. If the way this DVD is moving off shelves here in Lawton is any indication, I expect this 2-disc set to displace others like "Shrek," "The Matrix," "Gladiator" and "Harry Potter" as the biggest selling DVD to date.

I'm surprised New Line managed to fit the entire theatrical cut of the flick onto a single disc. Of course, the 178 minute running time negated any other extras on Disc One, such as a commentary track. Video quality on the anamorphic widescreen version is pretty decent given all the challenging visual material. Still, some details get pretty soft at times. I'll bet the 4-disc Collector's Edition (which will spread the 30-minute longer cut across 2 discs) will have noticeably sharper image detail and better refinement of motion.

Audio on the disc (DD-EX 5.1) is excellent. I don't think I have any other DVDs in my collection featuring DD tracks with as powerful a bass response as this. It kind of makes me wonder just how much more over-the-top the sound will be on the 4-disc edition and its DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete audio track.

New Line has said that many of the extras used on the 2-disc edition will not be carried over to the 4-disc version. I guess they want you to spend a lot of cash for both. The 2-disc edition contains a $5 mail-in rebate off the 4-disc set.

If you liked the movie okay and want some new home theater demo material, then pick up the 2-disc set. Bigger fanatics of the movie will wait for the 4-disc version or perhaps buy both sets. The 4-disc verison will retail for $40, but sites like Amazon are offering pre-order discounted prices of $25. At least New Line isn't bending people over big time like Universal is doing with their $70 price to get the E.T. DVD theatrical cut.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-06-2002, 10:05 PM:

The best part about LOTR being released on DVD is that the stores stayed open till midnight last night, allowing people to pick up their copies of STAR TREK II a few hours early.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 08-08-2002, 10:42 AM:

I rented the DVD today and i didn't enjoy it as much this time, i just felt that it wasn't meant for DVD at all, i kept having to squint my eyes to work out what was happening (i have a large w/s tv)and kept thinking i wish i could see this again on the big screen!.
It looked decent and sounded decent, but i just wasn't sold this time!.
I do however like this film and i feel in many years to come they (all three) will be seen as classics.

------------------
currently (relief)chief projectionist
at Luna Leederville cinemas
also cheerleader for john wilson (gooOO JOHN!)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-08-2002, 05:44 PM:

Brad,

I agree about the squinting part. This had to be one helluva hard title to encode in MPEG-2 and fit all 178 minutes on a DVD-9. Still, I prefer the widescreen version rather than watching it in "foolscreen".

I'll bet the upcoming 4-disc version will have quite an improvement on detail and sense of motion with the movie being spread across two discs. I just hope the "side break" happens at a sensible point.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-16-2002, 11:21 AM:

I saw this movie for the first time. Well worth the dollar fifty

. I arrived just after work, and sat in an empty hous for an hour. 16 people showed up, and this same print has been running here for 7 months now! I really hate bitching, but it has to be said. The print was scratched from begining to end, at any give time there were atleast 6 thick black scrathces on screen. Ocasionally one would catch a dirty emulsion scratch. Focus was soft, even after I asked them to fix it. uneven focus and a flickering lamp. the print was so scratched, I'm surprised it tracked in dolby at all, but I never heard it drop out.

enough bitching for one day, now for the movie itself....

I liked it, but it gave me the creeps on the way home

Josh

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-16-2002, 04:12 PM:

Josh said: "this same print has been running here for 7 months now! I really hate bitching, but it has to be said. The print was scratched from begining to end, at any give time there were atleast 6 thick black scrathces on screen. Ocasionally one would catch a dirty emulsion scratch. Focus was soft, even after I asked them to fix it. uneven focus and a flickering lamp."

Even though the print was on Fuji print film, you know the fault for this "film done wrong" experience really lies in the theatre.

------------------
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 Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-16-2002, 04:56 PM:

last two times I've been to that theater, I had to ask to run up to the booth and fix problems. The last two were shutter timing probs. "So thats ummm what that round thingy does". how pathetic.

also because the same chain owns all the theaters in town but us, the prints get circuited. usually something catastrophic will happen in first run and they are stuck with the fukt print

I do believe this had nothing to do with the film stock and I know you are a wee bit biased John

Josh

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-16-2002, 06:03 PM:

LotR is still playing here in Cinemark's $1.50 theater, 4 shows a day. It's probably one of their original first-run prints. I'm tempted to pay the $1.50 just out of curiosity to see what condition it's in. Not playing in digital though, only bad analog (the analog is bad in ALL 12 of those houses). They are also all under-lit and fuzzy.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-02-2003, 11:20 AM:

RE: The 4-disc special-edition DVD release. The film is spread across 2 discs. Both are dual-layer, Dolby-EX and DTS-ES sound, with multiple commentaries from cast, crew, etc. From watching the bitrate on the player, it appears that by splitting it up onto 2 dual-layer discs, they were able to maintain a higher than normal average bitrate. The picture is gorgeous -- I noticed virtually no MPEG-related flaws. Sound is excellent too (I ran Disc 1 in Dolby, and Disc 2 in DTS). The "intermission" comes at the conclusion of the sequence at Rivendell (?), right after Frodo declares that he will be the ringbearer and the fellowship is created.

I watched the entire 3.5 hours last night. There are several new scenes as well as many extended scenes on this version. Most of the added stuff does help round out the overall story. For example, at the beginning of the film a lot more time is spent establishing the lifestyle & character of the Hobbits in general. Also, there is a little more character-devlopment for Gandalf in particular, who comes off looking a little less sure of himself in this version. The liner notes say that new dialog & effects were created for the extended material, and sometimes the character of the recorded dialog changes noticeably in mid-scene. But this is a very minor distraction.

This is a complicated story, and it helps to be able to stop and replay a scene when someone says or does something that you miss. Also nice to be able to pause it when needed to take care of refreshments and personal hygiene. [Smile]

I also listened to about 30 mins. of the cast commentary. Almost all the major cast members are there. I got the sense that they are very proud of this work. They mentioned that Peter Jackson was very open to their input on character behavior and you get the feeling this was a real ensemble effort where everyone was busting ass to make this as good as it could possibly be and treat Tolkien's work with great respect. At one point Ian McKellan says something like "I was honored to be allowed to impersonate Gandalf in this film".

With a 3.5 hour running time, if you were to watch the film with the regular soundtrack, then with each of the 3 or 4 commentaries, you've got at least 12 hours of entertainment right there. Plus there are 2 additional "making of" type discs with hours more. At a street price of $30, this is quite an entertainment bargain for what you get.

If I were giving this stars, on a 5-star scale, "Fellowship Of The Ring" gets 5 out of 5 as a film, and the DVD gets 5 out of 5 for delivering so much extra stuff.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-02-2003, 12:30 PM:

The way the movie industry has evolved can be a movie-lover's dream. [Smile]

You can share the audience experience of seeing a movie presented on a big screen with great sound (at least in theatres that have "Film Done Right"), and then a few months later, see it again on DVD at home, with all the "extra" features.

Today's (January 2, 2003) Hollywood Reporter (THReast) has an interesting article on the changes in release patterns since 1996. The average number of screens opening weekend has grown from 1,857 to 2,445. The number of "ultrawide" releases (over 3,000 prints) has grown from only 1 in 1996 to 32 in 2002.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-07-2003, 08:15 AM:

quote:
The way the movie industry has evolved can be a movie-lover's dream.

That is certainly true in many respects. I love DVDs as a medium because of all the extras and the language choices (in Germany all movies are dubbed and there are few theatres which play orignal versions, and of those few only some are technically acceptable), especially the director`s commentary. I remember when I was a kid in the 70s, you could watch highlights of some movies at home on 8mm. Then video came, and it was so fascinating to be able to watch movies whenever you wanted.
On the other hand, I think it is not entirely good how the cinema business has evolved with thousands of small-screen plexes everywhere with mediocre equipment and movies playing themselves out in no time. It would be much nicer if we still had the big first-run theatres which ran big releases exclusively. In a way, it was a much cooler experience to watch a big movie in a packed house after having to cue for 2 hours even 1 month after the release.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-07-2003, 09:46 AM:

Michael Schaffer wrote: "On the other hand, I think it is not entirely good how the cinema business has evolved with thousands of small-screen plexes everywhere with mediocre equipment and movies playing themselves out in no time."

IMHO, for theatres to compete against the ever-improving "home theatre" experience, they WILL have to offer presentation quality and a viewing experience that is SUPERIOR to home theatre. That is why Kodak continues to "raise the bar" on film quality, work with labs to improve print quality, help theatres get the best quality out of film, and "raise the bar" on Digital Cinema quality:

KODAK VISION2 Films

Future of Imaging

Kodak Digital Cinema System

Kodak ScreenCheck

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-07-2003, 06:53 PM:

True, but I think the reality is that most movie theatres have given up on quality (if they ever intended to improve it). Those few people who want to raise standards face enormous obstacles and on top of all that, there isn`t enough money to implement improvements and raise the standard of the impression. After all, well trained operators are more expensive...
It would seem that the sheer number of cinemas should raise the standards because of the competition. But since there are lots of bad theatres everywhere, the general audience seems to accept those standards as what cinema is.
So many people are "waiting for the video" instead of seeing the movie at the theatre. As the cycles get faster and faster, they don`t have to wait for too long either.
Still, there is no point in complaining. I think that there will always be some who cherish the moviegoing experience for its social and quality aspects and those who will work hard to offer that quality.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-08-2003, 04:24 AM:

Let's please take the DVD discussion into a new thread in Yak so we can keep this one dedicated to reviews of the movie (and of this DVD if anyone feels inclined to comment on the "LOTR" DVD specifically.)