LOTR Trilogy (extended version) on Blu-ray 8/2012

[jefferiestubes8]

Warner Home Video has announced that The Lord of the Rings: Extended Editions will finally be available on 8/28 as Blu-ray singles (SRP $34.99 each). The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King will each be released as 5-disc sets that include the extended film split over 2 BD discs, along with 3 DVDs containing the Appendices discs and the Costa Botes documentaries. Note that these sets do not appear to include Digital Copy versions.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

for those of who who have waited 2 years.

related thread:
LOTR Trilogy (theatrical version) on Blu-ray in 2010

[FordSVT]

I bought the box set last year.

I think the significance here is that they are releasing single versions of the films, whereas you could only buy the box set before now. At least, that's what I'm inferring from this information.

[RoJoHen]

I bought the theatrical versions a while ago because I was able to get them for $9 a piece. I enjoy the extended editions, but I don't need them. When I watch LOTR, I have a habit of wasting my entire day away in front of the TV watching all 3 of them; I don't need them to be any longer than they already are!

[JarodRussell]

Shit. There goes the money.

[davejames]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

I bought the theatrical versions a while ago because I was able to get them for $9 a piece. I enjoy the extended editions, but I don't need them. When I watch LOTR, I have a habit of wasting my entire day away in front of the TV watching all 3 of them; I don't need them to be any longer than they already are!

Agreed. The extended versions do explain things a bit better, but I'm just not enough of a LOTR fanatic to want to sit through them ever again.

The theatrical versions are already good enough (and long enough) for me.

[Set Harth]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

I bought the theatrical versions a while ago because I was able to get them for $9 a piece. I enjoy the extended editions, but I don't need them. When I watch LOTR, I have a habit of wasting my entire day away in front of the TV watching all 3 of them; I don't need them to be any longer than they already are!

It's the fan club credits that really add insult to injury. At that point I start to feel like a hostage and wonder when I'm ever going to see my family again. It's like "we're only in the Ds!!!! Aaaugggghh!!!!"

[Plain Simple]

I've heard some people say that the Blu-ray extended versions are even longer than the dvd extended versions and that they include extra scenes? Then in other places I read that only the end credits are longer, with "fan club credits"? Can someone clear this up for me? Do the Blu-ray extended films include extra scenes or not? And what are "fan club credits"? Thanks!

[Timelord_Victorious]

I didn't notice any additional bonus scenes, and i have them seen often enough, I'd think

[JarodRussell]

Plain Simple wrote:

---

I've heard some people say that the Blu-ray extended versions are even longer than the dvd extended versions and that they include extra scenes? Then in other places I read that only the end credits are longer, with "fan club credits"? Can someone clear this up for me? Do the Blu-ray extended films include extra scenes or not? And what are "fan club credits"? Thanks!

The blu rays are "longer" because the are shown at 24 frames per second, while DVDs are shown at 25 frames per second (here in L'Europe at least). That's a 4% difference in running time.

[MacLeod]

^If That holds true for the US the DVD's would have run at 30fps(NTSC standard), so the difference would be even bigger in the states.

[ATimson]

MacLeod wrote:

---

^If That holds true for the US the DVD's would have run at 30fps(NTSC standard), so the difference would be even bigger in the states.

No, 24 FPS material can be converted relatively cleanly into 30 FPS with 3:2 pulldown (well, 59.97 fields per second if you want to get technical), so the DVDs still had the same running time in the US. But there isn't an equivalent technique for PAL, so they typically just speed the film up.

[davejames]

It was interesting watching Fellowship again after seeing The Hobbit. I haven't watched it in awhile (and am only a casual fan), so it was kinda cool seeing all the little callbacks to the earlier story. From the original versions of the stone cave trolls to mentions of the dragon and the Misty Mountains and the flashback to Bilbo in the cave.

Of course now that the much younger Martin Freeman is playing Bilbo in the Hobbit movies, Gandalf's comment about Bilbo having "hardly aged a day" seems a bit odd. The implication is that clearly he hasn't aged much from the cave flashback, but I guess now we have to assume it's from a later date.

I was also surprised to see that Sting had been slightly redesigned from LOTR. Figured Jackson would have kept little things like that more consistent.

[Starbreaker]

Weird. I rewatched Fellowship last night. As much as I enjoyed the Hobbit, FOTR is vastly superior. I enjoyed the evolution of Gandalf. Where he was mostly goofy in Hobbit, he's a little more reserved here, and then a total badass by the time he become Gandalf the White.

[Mr Light]

I prefer nice Gandalf the Grey (Hobbit, FOTR) to hard-ass warrior Gandalf the White.

[OmahaStar]

Mr Light wrote:

---

I prefer nice Gandalf the Grey (Hobbit, FOTR) to hard-ass warrior Gandalf the White.

The actor agrees with you. One of the things I heard him say in interviews repeatedly was that the Grey was much more fun to play. The White was "a stick in the mud."

Invited to play the Grey for three more movies, I'm sure he jumped at the chance.