One boxset to bind us all ..

L1ght · 23 Mar 2011 at 21:21

Why in gods name are there 15 blu-rays? With the capacity of a single or double layered blu-ray they could get everything on three.

Man if they do the whole splitting the films over two discs again I'm not going to bother with this and just get them digitally. I never watch the extra's and whoever does I doubt they'd watch them more than once or twice. I'd be gutted if the star wars trilogy got milked this bad. Knowing George Lucas it probably will. I'd love to see how much a 15 disc blu-ray set would cost. I'm guessing £60-£70.

Never the less these are great films and I really like them lol.

Marsman · 23 Mar 2011 at 22:30

£59.99 pre order at a famous island based site.

15 Blu-rays? I see you didn't read one of the posts above.

Larkspeed · 24 Mar 2011 at 06:43

EVH said:
I'd guess easily £69.99

Well according to the quoted article the expected release price is $120 USD so that put it more in the 80 - 90 pound range

SenTineL · 24 Mar 2011 at 07:50

ash_scotland88 said:
Taken from The Digital Bits, some more info on the transfer of "Fellowship" and why the extras aren't on Blu-ray:

<snip>

Interesting. Guess we'll have to wait for the 20th / 25th anniversary set, or the successor to Blu-ray before we see a 4k remaster

It's not all doom and gloom though, I don't remember it looking bad in the cinema, so I reckon the transfer will still look good, just not as good as it could have been.

L1ght said:
I'd be gutted if the star wars trilogy got milked this bad. Knowing George Lucas it probably will.

Agreed. Thinking about it, when has George *ever* passed up the opportunity to release another edition

Strife212 · 24 Mar 2011 at 09:23

L1ght said:
Why in gods name are there 15 blu-rays? With the capacity of a single or double layered blu-ray they could get everything on three.

No they can't a film takes up a blu ray by itself.

Ygolonac · 24 Mar 2011 at 09:26

Already have one ordered at £59.99 from the four letter word beginning with p.

Due for release on 28 June 2011 they say.

Django x2 · 24 Mar 2011 at 11:41

Crap films are crap, reserved only for premium members of the WoW Guild (or something)

jcb33 · 24 Mar 2011 at 11:58

Why did they need to have them on 2 blu-ray disks, I understand with the DVD releases but surely they could have fit the films onto 1 disc each?

Jcb33.

Marsman · 24 Mar 2011 at 12:01

Lucero said:
Crap films are crap, reserved only for premium members of the WoW Guild (or something)

What on earth are you talking about?

Deleted member 651465 · 25 Mar 2011 at 10:45

SenTineL said:
Interesting. Guess we'll have to wait for the 20th / 25th anniversary set, or the successor to Blu-ray before we see a 4k remaster

I thought they were only originally shot at 2k ?

Larkspeed · 25 Mar 2011 at 11:06

EVH said:
I thought they were only originally shot at 2k ?

FOTR was shot at 2k so there will never be a better remeaser for that but I believe the other 2 were shot in 4k

SenTineL · 25 Mar 2011 at 11:16

EVH said:
I thought they were only originally shot at 2k ?

Did a quick search and it looks like it was shot in Super 35mm.

The problem seems to be that the negative was only scanned at 2k, so the post work / final master was produced at 2k too. Everything would need to be re-scanned / re-rendered at 4k.

Maybe if the Hobbit does well and stirs up interest again we could see it sooner, I wouldn't want to bet on it though...

SenTineL · 25 Mar 2011 at 11:31

Larkspeed said:
FOTR was shot at 2k so there will never be a better remeaser for that but I believe the other 2 were shot in 4k

The trilogy was a continuous shoot over two or so years. They didn't shoot one film, then move onto the next, they picked up scenes from all three as they followed their schedule.

I would have thought it's extremely unlikely they would have used different flim stock for the different films, as that would be an extra headache on the continuity front, not to mention I'd imagine it would be more expensive that way.

Founder_film · 25 Mar 2011 at 11:49

SenTineL said:
The trilogy was a continuous shoot over two or so years. They didn't shoot one film, then move onto the next, they picked up scenes from all three as they followed their schedule.

I would have thought it's extremely unlikely they would have used different flim stock for the different films, as that would be an extra headache on the continuity front, not to mention I'd imagine it would be more expensive that way.

However the majority of FOTR was shot first. So it might of allowed them to switch film stocks. I don't know though.

Marsman · 25 Mar 2011 at 11:51

jcb33 said:
Why did they need to have them on 2 blu-ray disks, I understand with the DVD releases but surely they could have fit the films onto 1 disc each?

Jcb33.

The theatrical versions are on 1 disc per film. With any re-mastering, this would increase the films size, so having each film on 2 discs, at least makes some sense. What I can't understand is, if FotR is the only one to be re-mastered, and would need 2 discs, why are TTT and RotK also both on 2 discs?

SenTineL · 25 Mar 2011 at 12:40

Founder_film said:
However the majority of FOTR was shot first. So it might of allowed them to switch film stocks. I don't know though.

Yeah. Probably what I should have said is as long it's shot on film, you at least have the option to go back and rescan at a higher resolution.

I remember watching one of the features where Peter Jackson was talking about how invaluable digital grading was as they were able to match the look of scenes shot over a year apart :eek:

and were able to match variations they were seeing in different batches of film stock.

milkinc13 · 25 Mar 2011 at 15:16

2 disc's per film! that's annoying as get into the film and half way "please insert disc 2"

would it not be easier to use multi layer BR's and do firmware updates on all players to play the discs?

One boxset to bind us all ..

Deleted member 651465

Deleted member 651465