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

[mswood]

My points exactly Drone. They are solely milking die hard fans and collectors. A layman fan can pickup any of the theatricals with the same wimpy features for under $5. If there had been any new features this would have been worthwhile but not for the exact same dvds I already own.

So the film is worth 5 dollars but the just some new extras would bring the value of this up to 18-25 dollars per movie. Seriously? I honestly don't think most americans would agree with you. I fact I don't think most americans pay much attention to extras at all.

So if a customer (say average Joe) wants just the movie to enjoy on their new HDTV they should expect to buy any film that's been previously released for a mere $5.00.

Thats crap, and you should understand that. Heck you can't even buy the lower quality digital version for a mere $5.00.

I mean seriously I bought many Blu-Ray and many DVD's and very few of them have had extras that I would even pay $1 for.

Now the extended Edition are a real exception for me, I love those. But family couldn't give a crap about them. They've never done anything but watch the films and they love the films, but that is their only interest.

And this release is one they are very much looking forward to, in fact its one of about ten films that was the reason they upgraded to HD.

 

[clint g]

hopefully the product wont sell and the people in charge will learn a lesson about trying to abuse the customers

How the hell are the abusing customers?

Seriously.

You aren't forced to buy it.

They have told people up front which version it is.

They have told people up front that the Extended version will be out later.

Where's the abuse?

Releasing a lame product at an outrageous price for one. But it's true, I'm not forced to buy it. I said as much in my post. Now go chill, you're going to bust an artery

 

[od0_ital]

Well, I'll pick up this set later this week, since 1) I just got a blu ray player and 2) don't currently own the LotR trilogy (either version) on DVD. I used to have those three "limited edition" sets, with the branchin', but got rid of 'em some time ago.

Fry's Electronics has the set for $59.77, while both Best Buy & Target have 'em priced at $59.99. Best Buy also has an "Audruil's Sword letter opener" set option for $74.99. Don't think I really need that, though.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Seriously, mswood. You seem to be missing the point here. Seriously. Did I say seriously?

It's not that people are "obligated" to buy the barebones edition of the BDs. BD has great storage capacity. I mean the whole freakin' Special Deluxe Fabulous Director's Edition should fit into one or maybe two BD. People shouldn't have to double- triple-dip with Blu-rays! Sure, worst case scenario, people would have to wait for the Super Deluxe edition to come out, and this wouldn't be necessary if they released a halfway decent version of the Blu-Ray!

 

[Gryffindorian]

Edit: Double Post

 

[PhasersOnStun]

It's not that people are "obligated" to buy the barebones edition of the BDs.

BTW, when you say "barebones" you do realize that this release includes all the DVD special features from the original theatrical release DVDs, right? (it comes with 3 blu-rays & 3 DVDs)

I mention this because the initial Avatar release is supposed to be truly barebones. It will come with the theatrical movie in 2D, a "fly through pandora" special feature, and nothing else. To me, that (or a movie that comes with nothing except the film and "coming soon" trailers) is "barebones."

I agree with you that by not including the EEs and special features, just including DVDs of special features with the blu-rays, etc. that makes the set less valuable. I'm also pretty sure that a few years from now, we'll get an "all blu-ray" set with the theatrical and EEs in one set. So please don't think I'm trying to suggest this is a great or ideal set. But I'd hesitate to call any set with all those special features DVDs "bare-bones." For people who only own the EE DVDs, the entire package is new, since the EEs came with different special features than the theatrical cuts.

Anyway, I'm guessing you knew that, but just in case, I wanted to make sure it was clear.

 

[Gryffindorian]

"Barebones" may not be the correct term, but as you say the special features of the TE are different compared to EE, which I have on DVD. I'd rather prefer that they put everything in one BD edition instead of these various editions/releases. Unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

 

[mswood]

Seriously, mswood. You seem to be missing the point here. Seriously. Did I say seriously?

It's not that people are "obligated" to buy the barebones edition of the BDs. BD has great storage capacity. I mean the whole freakin' Special Deluxe Fabulous Director's Edition should fit into one or maybe two BD. People shouldn't have to double- triple-dip with Blu-rays! Sure, worst case scenario, people would have to wait for the Super Deluxe edition to come out, and this wouldn't be necessary if they released a halfway decent version of the Blu-Ray!

Yeah lets see, how many releases keep everything on disc, including a large amount of extras? No I am serious go look at every purchase you have and count the films that keep everything on just one disc that has at least 2 hours of video extras. Very few of mine do. Things like the barebones Potter films (which are the same footage as the DVD's OMG and came out with typically at 24.99 even at discount Stores?) . And well look they are also putting out (and years later no less) releases with about 8 -15 minutes of new footage and extras Look an additional discs of about two hours. But I am sure thats the exception.

People need to understand its the studios actual job and obligation to earn as much revenue as possible, within the law.

Many films have been released on Blu-Ray with the same features as the DVD release, and in general they hit the same price point (plus or minus a couple of dollars).

Many successful films get extended editions as well, and most come out later then the original and a higher price point. And so far, I don't think many studios put all the material on one disc, let alone one release. And in many cases the additions are far, far less then what was done for the Extended versions of LOTR.

Yet these releases are one of the few that have announced that more comprehensive additions would be forth coming. Most don't warn consumers, hell even with the first DVD's they let fans know.

Yet I on all the other threads only occasionally do you see people with those complaints. Go to Amazon.com and look at any release of other films and there isn't a huge push to thrash the films.

And frankly, why should all consumers get stuck with everything on a set, when all they might want is the film itself? I mean there is a reason that normal version sold far, far better then the extended.

But yet its seems perfectly acceptable to do it for this film, I find it to reek of hypocrisy.

 

[clint g]

People need to understand its the studios actual job and obligation to earn as much revenue as possible, within the law.

And it's the job of the consumer to tell them to stop being dicks and to release the product that we actually want

But yet its seems perfectly acceptable to do it for this film, I find it to reek of hypocrisy.

It's the internet. Deal with it.

 

[KB24]

People that already just want the films themselves can pick up the theatrical editions cheap. I think they should have just individually staggered the EE blu-ray releases than put the theatricals on blu-ray at all.

They are just movies, they are just features. No need to flip out over it. If I see them for the right price, I might buy. That would make fifth set of LOTR movies, but we're the audience they're marketing to anyway.

 

[PhasersOnStun]

I think they should have just individually staggered the EE blu-ray releases than put the theatricals on blu-ray at all.

I for one enjoyed the theatrical releases and would like them on blu-ray. I have both regular and EE DVDs and I think both are fun. Sometimes I specifically want to watch the theatrical editions, and I would like to get them in the best picture quality and sound as possible.

Ideal for me would be a blu-ray set with EEs and theatrical editions (along with special features, of course), but I certainly don't want the theatrical editions left out!

 

[Gatekeeper]

The last time I saw the LotR trilogy was in the theaters. I never purchased them for VHS or DVD ... but ever since I bought my PS3, I've long awaited this day — April 6, 2010.

Heh. I just got back from Wal-Mart, toting my gorgeous Blu-ray versions of LotR! YES!!! (Now all I need is sufficient free time to watch them all in a row.)

Gatekeeper

 

[od0_ital]

^

How much does Wal-Mart have 'em for?

 

[FordSVT]

Any chance the fx will be updated? I have all the EEs but I haven't bothered to watch in a while. I'm assuming that after 9 years Gollum probably looks crap compared to what we have today,

These are my wifes and my favourite films, they get watch at least once a month. Every time I watch them I'm amazed by the fact that they still look as good as or better than 99% of the big budget movies being released. Gollum looks no less "real" than the Na'vii in Avatar, and I stand by that. Most of the nitpicks I have are noticed because I've seen them dozens of times, not because they are dated.

We own the theatrical and EE releases, and while we both like the EE more, we tend to watch the theatrical releases more often because they are easily digestible and I don't have to plan my entire day around viewing one of them. They're simply better popcorn movies. We'll buy the Blu-ray versions and, believe it or not, probably hold off on buying the EE versions down the road until they're really cheap.

 

[Gatekeeper]

^

How much does Wal-Mart have 'em for?

$69.96. Pretty cheap, but not the cheapest.

 

[od0_ital]

^

How much does Wal-Mart have 'em for?

$69.96. Pretty cheap, but not the cheapest.

Yeah...I think I'll go to Best Buy this weekend, save ten bucks.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Seriously, mswood. You seem to be missing the point here. Seriously. Did I say seriously?

It's not that people are "obligated" to buy the barebones edition of the BDs. BD has great storage capacity. I mean the whole freakin' Special Deluxe Fabulous Director's Edition should fit into one or maybe two BD. People shouldn't have to double- triple-dip with Blu-rays! Sure, worst case scenario, people would have to wait for the Super Deluxe edition to come out, and this wouldn't be necessary if they released a halfway decent version of the Blu-Ray!

Yeah lets see, how many releases keep everything on disc, including a large amount of extras? No I am serious go look at every purchase you have and count the films that keep everything on just one disc that has at least 2 hours of video extras. Very few of mine do. Things like the barebones Potter films (which are the same footage as the DVD's OMG and came out with typically at 24.99 even at discount Stores?) . And well look they are also putting out (and years later no less) releases with about 8 -15 minutes of new footage and extras Look an additional discs of about two hours. But I am sure thats the exception.

People need to understand its the studios actual job and obligation to earn as much revenue as possible, within the law.

Many films have been released on Blu-Ray with the same features as the DVD release, and in general they hit the same price point (plus or minus a couple of dollars).

Many successful films get extended editions as well, and most come out later then the original and a higher price point. And so far, I don't think many studios put all the material on one disc, let alone one release. And in many cases the additions are far, far less then what was done for the Extended versions of LOTR.

Yet these releases are one of the few that have announced that more comprehensive additions would be forth coming. Most don't warn consumers, hell even with the first DVD's they let fans know.

Yet I on all the other threads only occasionally do you see people with those complaints. Go to Amazon.com and look at any release of other films and there isn't a huge push to thrash the films.

And frankly, why should all consumers get stuck with everything on a set, when all they might want is the film itself? I mean there is a reason that normal version sold far, far better then the extended.

But yet its seems perfectly acceptable to do it for this film, I find it to reek of hypocrisy.

You can say whatever you want in defense of these wealthy studios. In your own words, I'm NOT obligated to buy the TE Blu-Ray, and that's why I'm going to wait for the Extended Edition release.

As for the 3D edition I have no interest in purchasing the 3D BD, as I don't have $20,000 to upgrade my LCD TV, BD player, and my entire home movie library. When the 3D Blu-Rays sell for $10 at Wal-Mart and 3D TVs cost $500 apiece, I'll start thinking about it.

 

[hamudm]

Got my set for $18.99 due to a price error on the Future Shop website; shipped yesterday!

 

[jefferiestubes8]

LOTR Trilogy Blu-ray review

High Def Digest has a review up:
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Blu-ray)

only three of the discs are actually Blu-rays

The special features discs are all DVDs, as are the digital copy discs.

'The Two Towers' -

no way the fault of the transfer, the special effects work again looks quite bad in high definition.

'The Return of the King'

If there is one thing worth praising in this release, which often feels like a boondoggle, this audio track is it.

 

[KB24]

On tv I have noticed the HD is bad, but I just figured it was dumbass TNT showing a fullscreen pan and scan in HD. This may be a dumb question, but this set is widescreen, right? Why would anybody make anything fullscreen anymore?

Kind of weird that the features aren't blu-ray, just the same discs from the theatrical dvds! So bizarre!