View Full Version : FOTR 4 DVD Set Out November!
WiggyWog
19-02-2002, 21:42
LOTR DVD International Releases
August
DVD-VHS. The movie will be presented here in the theatrical version (2h 58'), without extra footage
November
Two choices:
- A double DVD, with the movie as seen in theaters and the extra
- A box containing 4 DVD, 2 of them are the same of the double DVD (see above), but you get also a DVD with the director's cut (Peter Jackson didn't decide yet between a 3h 30' version and a 4h version) and another DVD with other extra stuff
:clap:
Hope this is true, might be a bit pricey mind
Where have you seen/read this????:confused:
http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1014126210,40341,
probably here (http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1014126210,40341,) while a report on AICN has the following regarding the Directors Cut...
Peter just finished cutting the new version of FELLOWSHIP that will be on DVD, which should be 30 minutes longer.
So the 3hr 30min version is most likely.
dave.
Well the 4-disc version coming late Autumn is old news and has been rumored for at least a couple of weeks now. Don't see the point of including both cuts in separate 2-disc blocks when everything could be accomplished by seamless branching. Alternatively, why not just distribute the earlier discs as the theatrical cut, and devote all their effort to making the 4-disc package the definitive Directors Cut edition with a raft of extras.
Seems more logical to me.
Jazzatola
19-02-2002, 22:41
Everyone is picking up on the story now:
http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?3737
I hate the internet when this happens. It turns into a giant game of Chinese Whispers and you can't tell the facts from the rumour and conjecture.
Fingers crossed for that extended cut of the movie.
EdgeOfVictory
20-02-2002, 07:41
I thought Lucas had gall - then I saw this and it paled into insignificance.
3 releases in the space of 3 months? Why don't they just leave it?!
baconjoe
20-02-2002, 07:52
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
...because they want to make money?
Panavision
20-02-2002, 07:58
Seamless branching is just too complicated for some players, I'd rather have the films separate
Matchstick
20-02-2002, 10:02
Yeah it is a way to make extra money, but at least they're being up-front about it.
Nothing worse than releasing a film on DVD without telling customers that if they wait 6 months they can buy a better version.
The 4-disc version is going to cost a small fortune.
Originally posted by Panavision
Seamless branching is just too complicated for some players, I'd rather have the films separate
I have to agree with Panavision here. Surely it's best to have two seperate version a la Almost Famous than risk the cock up bestowed on Robocop.
Originally posted by Robby
I have to agree with Panavision here. Surely it's best to have two seperate version a la Almost Famous than risk the cock up bestowed on Robocop.
The downside, is that they will feel more justified to impose a large price tag for the multi-disc DVD than for a 2-disc package.
Originally posted by Robby
I have to agree with Panavision here. Surely it's best to have two seperate version a la Almost Famous than risk the cock up bestowed on Robocop.
Or buy a better player in the first place that should (in theory) be less prone to problems. On the other hand, if it's a mastering cock-up that causes seamless branching not to work properly, then nothing can alter that.
Weren't all the problems with the likes of Gladiator and Toy Story traced back to cheapo players cutting back on things like adequate internal memory to meet their price point?
I did reply earlier but Vb decided not to post it. :mad:
I would have thought something like LOTR is going to be popular with a lot of people, hardcore fans who want every version possible and those with cheap and those with expensive players. Yes ideally a seamless branching disc would be the way to go but with the amount of cheap players out there we are looking at a lot of potential complaints to Watchdog etc that their precious new copy of LOTR refuses to work if they go the seamless branching route. And this movie is going to sell by the bucketload on DVD.
Personally this one time i'd rather see a nice 4 disc with various versions just incase there is player incompatibilities. I still haven't seen the film but from what i can gather this is not really a film you want to pause/break up at certain points.
But as someone has already said, at least they've told us prior to releasing them.
Originally posted by cervaro
Or buy a better player in the first place that should (in theory) be less prone to problems. On the other hand, if it's a mastering cock-up that causes seamless branching not to work properly, then nothing can alter that.
Weren't all the problems with the likes of Gladiator and Toy Story traced back to cheapo players cutting back on things like adequate internal memory to meet their price point?
For a moment could you consider how ******* the usual 'buy a better player' statement could be to someone who is on a budget and could not afford a 'better player'? Cheap CD players WORK, period. A bit unkind to blame someone who invested in a cheap DVD player for having confidence that DVD would have the same 100% compatibility rate as they had become used to with CD.
(Sorry but these dismissive, through-away statement IRK me.)
In any event, the myriad problems with disc/player compatibilities have not all been confined solely to budget players. Yes, lack of memory caused the problem with the third Toy Story disc in the ultimate Toy Box edition but the Gladiator disc caused hang ups on both cheap chinese players AND major brands. (It played fine on my son's player which is a cheapo Alba 103). And the current Robocop release has been found to cause problems with certain, less-than-cheap Toshiba models.
Back on topic, I can't wait for Fellowship of The Ring to be released but am completely and utterly befuddled as to which editions are being released. 4-disc? 4 hour long director cut? Jings. How about bunging the standard cinematic version onto a bare-bones disc NOW (or as soon as the film is no longer on general release at the flicks) and then, further down the line, tempt us with these mad 4 disc epic 4 hour long editions. :nuts:
I don't dispute the fact that DVD's should work in all players, but it seems to be that the majority of problems do occur in cheapo players. The price point has to be achieved somehow, and cutting back on the quality of components, omitting features, etc. is the penalty for going the cheap route.
From what I remember of the Gladiator/Toy Story probs, the R1 editions didn't suffer anywhere near as many problems, which to me would have initially implied an encoding problem in the UK. However, I as said before, the majority of complaints came from ***************e owners (can't even stand to see the name, but then I'm a technosnob). The correlation can't really be argued with on that score.
It's just that people should be aware that if they choose to/have to buy cheap DVD players, the likelihood of disc problems appears to be statistically higher.
Anyhow, back to LOTR, given it's length, the Directors Cut would need to be on 2-discs by itself. The theatrical cut should fit on a single disc if only including DD5.1 audio and no DTS. That would leave a fourth disc packed to the gills with extras.
Personally I don't care whether a disc has DTS sound. Only detectable difference for me is that DTS has a tendency to have more bass and is louder than DD5.1 sound. Dreamworks had to sacrifice DTS on the Directors Cut of Almost Famous, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar practice from New Line with LOTR.
I'd expect a 4-disc set to retail for at least £30 (on a par with Pearl Harbor Vista series). Any more than that will start to take it out of reach of the casual buyer and probably those who bought budget players, so bringing my post full circle.
StuBruise
21-02-2002, 12:06
I was under the impression that the faulty discs mentioned above were due to the fact that they weren't fully compliant with DVD specifications; some players had a bit of leeway in what they could handle whereas others stuck ridgidly to the standard spec. meaning that discs that were even slightly non-spec. wouldn't work. Blaming the player for being unable to play non-spec. discs isn't totally fair because they shouldn't really be expected to play non-spec. discs in the first place :nuts:
~~stu
Originally posted by Robby
I still haven't seen the film but from what i can gather this is not really a film you want to pause/break up at certain points
whats sort of film DO you want to break up at certain points??:confused: :confused:
Panavision
21-02-2002, 13:02
T2 UE is problematic on my Tosh 100, there's a tiny audio drop-out when an extra scene is added back into the film!
If they can perfect the seamless branching, then it's cool, but they must test thorougly!!!
Originally posted by jamesking420
whats sort of film DO you want to break up at certain points??:confused: :confused:
I knew someone would say that. I didn't explain myself properly.
Obviously none, but the fact that it is LOTR and it's marvelled at for it's beautiful Cinamatography.
I don't want any film to be unwatchable because of bad seamless branching. I'm apprehensive about Robocop as i'm not sure how bad it will be on my player.
mikegray
21-02-2002, 14:22
Originally posted by StuBruise
I was under the impression that the faulty discs mentioned above were due to the fact that they weren't fully compliant with DVD specifications;
I think so, in the same way that some players are having problems with the current protection of some Audio CDs - which is because they're about a mile away from Red Book! [It is Red Book for CD-DA isn't it?] - although I understood branching was part of the DVD spec. Anyone got a link for the paper defining what is and isn't a DVD? Perhaps whoever owns the trademark can spit the dummy like Philips is doing over CD-DA and copy protection! [Threatening to take the logo away from those discs and produce domestic CD copiers that can copy them purposely! www.cdfreaks.com for more]
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.