DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Cool Chris on August 17, 2018, 04:24:54 PM
-
Quick backstory: I had no familiarity with this story when the films came out, I probably couldn't have told you what a Hobbit was. I remember when announced it was huge news so casually followed the development. I saw the movies one time each in the theater. I fully enjoyed the spectacle, though didn't get too wrapped up in the story. Was lost on a few smaller plot points but it didn't bother me. Ended up reading the books. Found them enjoyable but think I benefited from having seen the films beforehand for context. And fantasy was never my thing.
Fast forward.... I just watched all three movies again, first time since in the theater (I have the Extended editions) I similarly found them enjoyable, but more for the spectacle and the characters than the overall plot. There were some subplots I enjoyed that I didn't recall from my first viewing. And while I couldn't always say for sure, I felt I had a good idea of what scenes were added for the Extended Editions, either because it didn't look familiar at all, or seemed like something that would have been cut due to time constraints.
Not sure where I am going with all this. Just saw about 9-10 hours worth of of a film saga and feel the need to talk about it with someone.
If possible I'd like to keep this focused on the films and not the books or drawing any comparisons between the two, but I know that will be restrictive.
-
It’s become a family tradition in my house to spend an entire day watching the extended versions during one of the extended weekends I always get near the years end.
I adore the original trilogy. Absolutely perfect set of movies and I cry like a baby through many of the scenes.
Sometimes I’ll throw in The Hobbit trilogy the day before, but it’s really not the same. The actors do a good job, and there are a few really great moments, but there’s a lot that’s bloated and klunky as well.
-
It's weird. When I tell people I'm a huge geek/nerd, there are a few assumptions as it pertains to movies.
1) I must love Star Wars
2) I might like Star Trek
3) I must love Lord of the Rings.
And I don't. I like Star Wars. I do love Star Trek, but I don't like LOTR at all.
Why? I have no idea. I wanted to like it. I just didn't care about it. It was AMAZINGLY done. I can't criticize any of that. I just didn't connect with any of it. I saw all three LOTR films in theater and even own the extended copies on Blu Ray. Just don't dig them much.
Didn't bother watching the Hobbit films after the first.
I do enjoy Gimly or whatever though.
-
I remember leaving the theater three times with three thoughts:
1) Someone finally got to film "big fantasy" right (coincidentally, around the same period Brian Synger's X-men got me thinking the same applied to Marvel comics)
2) Since John Ford no one else had made the scenery a living pulsating character in such a convincing way.
3) Instant classic score
-
3) Instant classic score
Promise? :heybaby:
-
The extended version, even
-
I really enjoyed the films. In most cases, I'm not too huge into extended editions, but in this case I typically only watch the full versions for lord of the rings.
-
I am about where Adami is. I can't find many faults in any of the films, either significant or minor. That I don't find the quest to destroy the ring very compelling isn't a fault of the film. I found the dynamic between Boromir, Faramir, and their douchebag father quite an interesting subplot and added a lot to each of those three characters. I liked the banter and competitiveness between Gimli and Legolas. I didn't care nearly as much about a couple Hobbits trying to throw a ring in to some lava.
I commend the fimmakers for biting off this challenge that could have failed to entertain the masses, pissed off die-hard Tolkien fans, or both. They had a vision, and they succeeded in translating it to the film.
Indiscipline makes a good point about the scenery. Every place looked and felt real, even if in a fantastical way. Gondor felt like a small kingdom, not the back lot of some studio, a matte painting, or a CGI creation.
-
Adore the films, and seen them many, many times. For me, the massive scope of what the films achieved has not been matched until the MCU did it's number. As someone else said, someone finally got fantasy right, and as someone who was familiar with the books before seeing it, it was a delight to see they nailed the world ending dramatic vibe of the books, the absolute desperation of that ultimate struggle of good vs evil. For me it was a brilliant translation.
And then he did the Hobbit and fucked it all up.
-
Adore the films, and seen them many, many times. For me, the massive scope of what the films achieved has not been matched until the MCU did it's number. As someone else said, someone finally got fantasy right, and as someone who was familiar with the books before seeing it, it was a delight to see they nailed the world ending dramatic vibe of the books, the absolute desperation of that ultimate struggle of good vs evil. For me it was a brilliant translation.
And then he did the Hobbit and fucked it all up.
Yeah, I'm watching the First hobbit movie right now. 40mins in and I am pretty bored. They haven't even left Bag end yet FFS. Does a 310 page book need to be almost 9 hours worth of movie?
I love the Lord of the rings movies though. Their pacing is swift.
-
And then he did the Hobbit and fucked it all up.
I don't really blame Peter Jackson for the way the Hobbit trilogy ended up. From what I can remember, he had to make a ton of changes to the original plan to get the studio to buy into it. Had he been able to keep it down to two movies then a lot of the bloat that ruined them would have been trimmed away.
-
I saw them at the theater when they came out. There were 2 huge queues. One for Lord of the Rings and another for Harry Potter. I came out thinking it was the best movie I had ever watched. I don't think it is anymore, but I still hold the trilogy as something very special.
I never cared for Harry Potter and never understood the fascination for Star Wars. I had hopes that the Hobbit trilogy would be awesome too, but it turned out to be horrible and a crime.
"Does a 310 page book need to be almost 9 hours worth of movie?"
This sums it up pretty well.
-
The Fellowship of the Ring was basically perfect as it reasonably could be. To do better, it should have been a word by word translation of how each and every reader pictured the events in his mind while reading the book.
The Two Towers was possibly put into a corner for pacing reasons which turned the Helm Deep's battle into the gigantic climax of the movie and then was filled and bloated with unnecessary stuff like Aragorn not dying and Gimli being a coming relief.
Return of the King was a perfect and fitting ending, bombastic and glorious. The only major mistake they did was not showing the Nazgul tearing down Minas Tirith's gate and Gandalf standing alone on Shadowfax waiting for him. That was cinematic enough in the book and it's a shame it wasn't filmed exactly as the book had it. Also the Mount Doom scene should have been exactly like in the book, no need for Frodo to be somehow a hero - it was the whole point of the book that overlooked characters could have gigantic consequences if allowed to live.
People complain about the multiple endings.... yeah, what a tragedy to have the movie finishing *exactly* like the book does.
Anyway, Return of the King has at least three scenes that always make me cry and I get emotional even by thinking about it:
- "For Frodo"
- "I can't carry the ring for you... but I can carry you"
- "My friends... you bow to no one"
Geez I got my eyes wet just by typing this.
-
My only criticisms of the movie are where they deviated from the books significantly. Fantastic movies. I've been wanting to rewatch them all for a while but haven't found the time.
-
I haven't read the books, but I love the films - I'd include them in some of my favourites of all time. It seems crazy that it's almost 17 years since the first movie was released.
The making of/behind the scenes stuff is incredible too - it's amazing hearing about all the painstaking effort and time that went in to crafting the trilogy.
-
The Lord of the Rings trilogy opened my eyes to cinema, and all the elements that come with it. Cinematography. Art Direction. Sound. Music. Before, I was just watching movies for entertainment, but it wasn't until The Fellowship of the Ring that filmmaking clicked for me. It formed a passion of mine which turned into a profession, and I am blessed to get called up by Warner Bros every now and then for work, the studio that owns New Line Cinema.
The only other time I remember crying in a movie prior to The Lord of the Rings was as a 7 years old watching Mufasa's death in The Lion King. I was 14 years old when the Fellowship of the Ring was released, and I was bawling at the Balrog scene where Gandalf fell. A big part of it was Howard Shore’s music in that scene. Some of it was the slow mo of Boromir trying to drag Frodo away fromthe cave as he screaming for Gandalf. Then outside, the bewilderment on everyones face. The amount of grief. It was a beautiful scene. The Fellowship of the Ring was my introduction to Middle Earth, and for some reason, I cared deeply about these characters, especially Gandalf.
-
LOTR trilogy is lightning in a bottle, a timeless classic that will be remembered decades from now!
-
It's an astounding piece of cinematic brilliance. I was too young and unknowing to care about the Fellowship and Two Towers, but watching the Return on the big screen was nothing short of amazing
-
LOTR trilogy is lightning in a bottle, a timeless classic that will be remembered decades from now!
This. LOVE the LOTR trilogy. Really enjoy The Hobbit trilogy.
-
The extent of my knowledge of the Lord of the Rings was the Hobbit cartoon that I happened to see in passing as a kid. Fast forward to early 2002, my friends and I decide to go to the theaters to see Kung Pao enter the fist or whatever tf it was called. We walked in the theater and I saw a poster for Fellowship, I said, that looks pretty cool. That pretty much stopped my D&D playing, LOTR obsessed friends in their tracks.... "You haven't seen it yet???" "Uh no".
Needless to say, we called an audible, and despite some of my friends having already seen the film multiple times, we watched that, and I was blown away. Ended up watching all 3 in theaters and bought the extended versions on DVD, then Blu-Ray.
Awesome story, characters, and as said above... fantasy done right. Peter Jackson really did an incredible job bringing Middle-Earth to life.
-
Kung Pao enter the fist
what the fuck is that even supposed to say? :lol
Kung Pao is an Asian chicken dish and 'enter the fist' doesn't make any sense at all. I'm seriously laughing out loud now.
-
It was a kung fu parody movie. The title was supposed to be stupid that way.
-
Every year, usually around the holidays, I watch all of my favorite movies. While the exact list of films varies from year to year, there are a few staples that will probably never change until the day I die.
1) LOTR Trilogy
2) Star Wars Trilogy
3) MCU
LOTR is always an especially epic experience.
-
Love the films. LOTR is one of my passions and they're just incredible cinematic achievements, all three of them. The extended editions are fantastic and worth every extra second of holding your pee until the credits roll. :) I don't much mind the differences between the films and the books, as I think they make the films better and are executed quite well. I can't believe how good they still look today. They're the best fantasy films ever made. That's lightning in a bottle, I honestly don't think we'll get another LOTR-related film of such high quality for a very long time.
I'm far more critical of the Hobbit films. I don't enjoy watching them (I don't even own the Blu-rays of the second or third films yet) and am genuinely annoyed by many of the changes, original content, and splitting of the story into three freaking films. 2 would've been just fine. I really wish they would have spent more time and effort giving the party of dwarves backstory and character development instead of spending it on original characters and bad, shoehorned love stories, cartoonish goblin chases and making most of the third film one big battle. Don't get me started on Azog and Radagast.
-
I agree with a lot of the Hobbit criticisms except - I love that it look that long for them to leave Bag End. It was a totally cool set up where you got to know all of the characters and in a series that has what, 40 minute fight sequences? the long set up was totally cool.
Also, I thought Martin Freeman was the perfect Bilbo.
-
I agree with a lot of the Hobbit criticisms except - I love that it look that long for them to leave Bag End. It was a totally cool set up where you got to know all of the characters and in a series that has what, 40 minute fight sequences? the long set up was totally cool.
Also, I thought Martin Freeman was the perfect Bilbo.
Totally agree, the slow buildup to leaving Bag End was well done and Martin Freeman was definitely the perfect Bilbo. Lots of mannerisms and facial expressions that nail his character.
-
I haven't read the books in 10+ years and can't get in to any decent book/film discussion, but the two things I recall standing out as different, and vastly improved in the films, was the pacing, and how they handled multiple storylines, once the Fellowship disbanded. Making a 3 hour film have the proper pacing and maintaining a narrative with multiple important story lines cannot be easy, especially one with the size and scope of LOTR. Aside from the visuals, I think this was the filmmakers' true masterstroke. If they don't ace either of those, the films fall apart.
On the flip side, I recall thinking the books were poorly paced (get started on your quest already Hobbits, quit messing round with Tom Bombadil for like 6 chapters!), and once the Fellowship got separated, the narratives weren't held together well.
-
Love the films. LOTR is one of my passions and they're just incredible cinematic achievements, all three of them. The extended editions are fantastic and worth every extra second of holding your pee until the credits roll. :) I don't much mind the differences between the films and the books, as I think they make the films better and are executed quite well. I can't believe how good they still look today. They're the best fantasy films ever made. That's lightning in a bottle, I honestly don't think we'll get another LOTR-related film of such high quality for a very long time.
I'm far more critical of the Hobbit films. I don't enjoy watching them (I don't even own the Blu-rays of the second or third films yet) and am genuinely annoyed by many of the changes, original content, and splitting of the story into three freaking films. 2 would've been just fine. I really wish they would have spent more time and effort giving the party of dwarves backstory and character development instead of spending it on original characters and bad, shoehorned love stories, cartoonish goblin chases and making most of the third film one big battle. Don't get me started on Azog and Radagast.
Totally agree with all of this. I remember reading the books in my early 20s and them having a huge impact on me. The original trilogy was a triumph, with great casting, groundbreaking visual effects, but still managed to capture the spirit and pathos of the original story. I don't even mind the multiple endings that it normally gets criticism for. To me, it feeling like each of the characters deserve their own time in the spotlight.
Speaking of endings, the decision to leave out the Scouring Of The Shire was quite a brave one, but I think it works on screen. In the book, I totally get the idea that war is something that follows you home, but maybe this would have been just too much for the movie.
One little nitpick I have of the movies is the portrayal of Galadriel. She is quite different than the version of her I imagined from the books. In the books, she's kind, wise, beautiful, but her power is something that is very subtle, and just hinted at. In the movies, I think she comes off as more menacing, maybe it's due to the slow voice and the "ghost freakout" scene, but I remember thinking that was a bit off when I first watched it. ("Welcome Frodo, one who has seen THE EYE")
The Hobbit movies were a major step down in quality, but not totally terrible. I think the casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin was spot on. Smaug was very well done. There was just so much extra fluff and padding, when they could have made a really tight story over 2 movies. I think there's a video where PJ himself, to his credit, admits to mistakes being made. I don't think they had anywhere near enough time for pre-production and were forced into winging a lot of things.
On the flip side, I recall thinking the books were poorly paced (get started on your quest already Hobbits, quit messing round with Tom Bombadil for like 6 chapters!), and once the Fellowship got separated, the narratives weren't held together well.
I'm not sure I'd agree that they are poorly paced. The books were written in a certain style, which definitely takes a while to get used to. When I read LOTR I feel like I'm settling in for the long haul, as opposed to the likes of the latest Jack Reacher novel, which I'll pick up and tear through in very little time. I think it's really more of a style and genre thing.
-
Not much else to add - I was really into these films when they came out, but now that they have aired so much on TV, I haven't really watched them in a very long time. I love that they capture the visual of Middle Earth so well. The books felt like pages and pages of descriptions of grass and singing, followed by a paragraph of "there was a battle for the fate of the world and the good guys won." The films could then expand on some of the action sequences because they showed the settings so beautifully.
Perfectly cast films as well. I did just sell an expanded edition at a garage sale for a few bucks. I hadn't touched in in 10+ years, so there was no need to keep it.
-
Question for those who have invested in the latest versions of these films. I have the original special edition LOTR DVD box sets (you know the ones with the maps that came in book-like packaging).
I recently bought a 4k player and higher end TV, and I've been slowly purchasing the stuff I like in 4k (or the highest available).
First, is it worth it to upgrade and sell my existing sets?
Two, I am not sure how many future iterations of LOTR exist on Blu-Ray, or if they are on 4k (haven't looked yet). Can you point me to the most advanced version, and offer some insight whether or not the upgrade is worth it?
Thanks. I am a big fan of the books and enjoyed the films (and their differences), but probably not as versed as some, so I wouldn't be able to contribute to the discussion (if it were Dragonlance however, you'll meet your match with me - ha ha ha).
B
-
if it were Dragonlance however, you'll meet your match with me - ha ha ha
You don't by any chance have an extra copy of Chronicles, do you? A few years ago, I was trying to find a copy of the white anthology that has the original three for Matthew, but it was rare and EXTREMELY expensive, so I never did. I have been sporadically looking for used copies, but haven't found one.
/offtopic
-
Regarding the LOTR/Hobbit film discussion above: One of the things that truly elevated the films for me, and this is evident when you watch/listen to the bonus features, is that Peter/Fran/Philippa took great pains to balance the competing interests of (1) staying true to the books and (2) making sure their presentation worked to present an effective screenplay. They made sure that whenever they deviated from the source material, it was in furtherance of the most important core themes they wanted to emphasize, and that it was still very true to the themes and feel of the books, even if they had to alter certain specifics. To me, it never felt like anything other than authentic LOTR, even when they were changing things.
To me, the Hobbit films weren't bad because they were bloated. In and of itself, I don't mind the fact that they were 3 films (although I think 2 would have been just right, assuming they cut the right things). It was that where they deviated, it too often did NOT feel authentic to the source material. They took too many liberties that just felt foreign and out of place. There wasn't that painstaking attention to the feel of the source material that made you feel like Tolkein could very well have been on set, even when you knew they were changing things to make it work as a set of movies. There were plenty of things that were great about the Hobbit films. But for every one of those, you had a dumb video game fight scene with CG Galadriel and Saruman taking on the 9, or the CG battle of Smaug vs. Dwarves and the molten gold factory.
-
Agreed, bosk. Although, I do enjoy the addition of the appendices material in the Hobbit films, partially because I just enjoyed seeing Galadriel and Elrond return.
But I still can't wipe the image of Legolas, who shouldn't even be in the movie in the first place, Super Mario Bros.ing his way up hilariously slowly falling rocks. Video game indeed. Yuck.
-
Agreed, bosk. Although, I do enjoy the addition of the appendices material in the Hobbit films, partially because I just enjoyed seeing Galadriel and Elrond return.
But I still can't wipe the image of Legolas, who shouldn't even be in the movie in the first place, Super Mario Bros.ing his way up hilariously slowly falling rocks. Video game indeed. Yuck.
Yeah, I didn't have a problem with the additions either, as a whole. It was just that, again, they went too far beyond that and executed many scenes in a way that wasn't believable.
As a whole, I didn't mind Legolas being in the films. I buy into the explanation that he likely would have been around for some of those events, even though not mentioned in the book. But he should not have played such a major role. And he should not have been so video-gamey. And he should...I could go on and on. :lol They just botched his character's handling many times over.
-
Did you know Stephen Colbert, TV's biggest LOTR nerd, is a guard in Lake-town? I didn't until someone online got a screen capture of it.
-
(if it were Dragonlance however, you'll meet your match with me - ha ha ha).
Wait. I thought I was the only one left on earth.
Pardon the hijacking but - since we're talking fantasy done right - is it me or Dragons of Autumn Twilight has been the most shameful wasted opportunity in filming history?
-
Regarding the LOTR/Hobbit film discussion above: One of the things that truly elevated the films for me, and this is evident when you watch/listen to the bonus features, is that Peter/Fran/Philippa took great pains to balance the competing interests of (1) staying true to the books and (2) making sure their presentation worked to present an effective screenplay. They made sure that whenever they deviated from the source material, it was in furtherance of the most important core themes they wanted to emphasize, and that it was still very true to the themes and feel of the books, even if they had to alter certain specifics. To me, it never felt like anything other than authentic LOTR, even when they were changing things.
To me, the only addition I ever minded was Aragorn "dying" in TTT. It felt completely unnecessary and added only to provide some unneeded tension. My only other minor nitpick is how they turned Gimli into comic relief at times. It usually doesn't bother me too much, but every now and then it does. Otherwise I agree they did a very good job only adding to further serve the story. I thought they did a very good job with their subtractions as well.
Man, I need to watch these movies again. I just rarely have the time to spare. I could watch them all 45 minutes at a time over several weeks. That's probably my best bet honestly.
-
No, I had no idea.
-
I never had a problem with Gimli or his being "comic relief" ( I hate that term). I don't recall how he was portrayed in the book but I liked his film characterization. I found him humorous without being annoying or silly (see: Bill Paxton in Aliens). I could totally see how a troll on an life and death adventure with elves and men might have a more lighthearted, quirky view about things.
-
Yeah, I kinda like the way they portrayed Gimli, and I liked the kill count rivalry with Legolas, which was pretty funny at times. I'm usually even okay with Legolas's Hollywood theatrics (shieldsurfing and firing arrows down the steps, or traversing the oliphaunts like a video game, as they were done pretty well).
-
Agreed. Even though it was so over the top as to be COMPLETELY unrealistic, I still thought it was cool when he does his reverse-one handed, backwards, on the run, uber-impossible horse mount.
-
That was perhaps the ONLY moment in the entire trilogy where the CGI truly bothered me.
-
I didn't care for Legolas, (more for the portrayed than the bad CGI-acrobatics) and I didn't like Will Turner either. Not sure if that was the writing or Orlando Bloom managed to fail in two hugely successful and acclaimed franchises.
-
That part is so ridiculous it almost deserves applause :lol
-
I really liked the Legolas character and Bloom's portrayal of him in LOTR. It went off the rails with The Hobbit, but I actually quite liked what they did with him in LOTR.
-
I didn't mind the portrayal of Gimli, even though it did stray into borderline slapstick territory at times (e.g. "Toss me"). The kill count rivalry with Legolas was very cool, and true to the books, as was the overall arc (hate that word!) between them, going from animosity and distrust to genuine friendship. I'm still not convinced they needed to have him as comic relief at all.
Speaking of CGI, there was some really cool stuff that I hadn't seen before in a movie. As well as the obvious ones like Gollum, and the huge battle scenes, I'm thinking of the de-ageing of King Theoden, when Gandalf breaks Saruman's spell. That was something I'd never seen before and I remember thinking "how did they do that??"
-
I agree, the de-aging of Theoden is a very cool moment.
Also I realized a couple days ago that I think of Grima Wormtongue every time I see Jonas from Katatonia :lol
-
if it were Dragonlance however, you'll meet your match with me - ha ha ha
You don't by any chance have an extra copy of Chronicles, do you? A few years ago, I was trying to find a copy of the white anthology that has the original three for Matthew, but it was rare and EXTREMELY expensive, so I never did. I have been sporadically looking for used copies, but haven't found one.
/offtopic
https://www.amazon.com/Dragonlance-Chronicles-Dragons-Twilight-dragons/dp/0140115404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1535126320&sr=8-1&keywords=dragonlance+chronicles+omnibus
>>>20 bucks used and fulfilled by Amazon (which are usually in good shape).
(if it were Dragonlance however, you'll meet your match with me - ha ha ha).
Wait. I thought I was the only one left on earth.
Pardon the hijacking but - since we're talking fantasy done right - is it me or Dragons of Autumn Twilight has been the most shameful wasted opportunity in filming history?
Completely. I think LOTR and Game of Thrones took the wind out of the sails of any potential film for Dragonlance. Different stories, but the immense popularity of LOTR makes anything else remotely concerning elves, dwarves, and dragons a copy cat.
Sucks, because Dragonlance would be amazing on the big screen.
-
Can anyone assist on my question regarding upgrading?
Question for those who have invested in the latest versions of these films. I have the original special edition LOTR DVD box sets (you know the ones with the maps that came in book-like packaging).
I recently bought a 4k player and higher end TV, and I've been slowly purchasing the stuff I like in 4k (or the highest available).
First, is it worth it to upgrade and sell my existing sets?
Two, I am not sure how many future iterations of LOTR exist on Blu-Ray, or if they are on 4k (haven't looked yet). Can you point me to the most advanced version, and offer some insight whether or not the upgrade is worth it?
Thanks. I am a big fan of the books and enjoyed the films (and their differences), but probably not as versed as some, so I wouldn't be able to contribute to the discussion (if it were Dragonlance however, you'll meet your match with me - ha ha ha).
B
-
I can't speak to the picture quality. But if you have the extended versions already, you have all the content. For what it's worth, I have the extended version DVD's--not even BR--and I've never felt the need to upgrade. Yeah, you can tell a difference. But to me, after a few minutes into the films, I'm not even thinking about it anymore at all. These films already look SO good that I would think the difference would be fairly negligible that it wouldn't justify the cost. But that's just me.
-
Also I realized a couple days ago that I think of Grima Wormtongue every time I see Jonas from Katatonia :lol
Wow, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I've thought that for years as well :lol
-
They haven't released 4K versions yet, but I would surprised if they never did. I've seen people speculate that they may do it for the 20th anniversary of the first movie in 2021.
As for the jump in picture quality between SD and HD, I think only you can answer if it would be worth it. Some people don't seem to notice or just don't care. Others want the absolute highest quality they can get. I'm firmly in the latter camp - I would never want to watch anything in SD these days if there is better quality available.
Have you checked how DVDs of the movies look on your new TV? You might find they don't look as good as you remember being on a larger, much higher resolution screen. I just had a look on eBay and you can get a second hand copy of the first movie for £1.69 (about $2.20), you could try something like that as well to see the improvement for yourself.
-
I would buy a massive 4k TV just for 4k Blu-rays of the extended trilogy. Talk about eye candy...
-
They haven't released 4K versions yet, but I would surprised if they never did. I've seen people speculate that they may do it for the 20th anniversary of the first movie in 2021.
As for the jump in picture quality between SD and HD, I think only you can answer if it would be worth it. Some people don't seem to notice or just don't care. Others want the absolute highest quality they can get. I'm firmly in the latter camp - I would never want to watch anything in SD these days if there is better quality available.
Have you checked how DVDs of the movies look on your new TV? You might find they don't look as good as you remember being on a larger, much higher resolution screen. I just had a look on eBay and you can get a second hand copy of the first movie for £1.69 (about $2.20), you could try something like that as well to see the improvement for yourself.
Thanks for this. I have, and was unimpressed how less inspiring it looks on my new TV, which got me thinking about the upgrade. So the current Blu-rays that are out there are my best option for a bit. That's good to know. 4k Blu-rays are just absolutely amazing. My first purchase (which if you know me, you know is a no-brainer) was the Dark Knight Trilogy on 4K. My God. :metal
-
The Hong Kong scene in TDK must have been AMAZING.
-
The Hong Kong scene in TDK must have been AMAZING.
It was incredible. I mean...crazy good.
4k is still eerie to me. I went from an old DLP 55" TV to a 4K 68" TV (I think its 68), and the clarity is downright weird now...almost inhuman like clarity. It has taken some getting used to.
-
I agree, the de-aging of Theoden is a very cool moment.
Also I realized a couple days ago that I think of Grima Wormtongue every time I see Jonas from Katatonia :lol
Hahaha...When I first saw Jonas, I said "he looks familiar." Now I remember who it was...
-
Brad Dourif's brilliant career has progressed to the point where I cannot envision him as a "normal" person. Clinton Pell is the closest I can come, and I prefer to think in real life he is as polar opposite from that asshole as possible.
-
Watching Fellowship on Starz right now, and I just realized the Gondor fanfare is playing while Boromir is talking to Aragorn about it in the Lothlorean scene. Never realized it until now