Odds of a 4K UHD LOTR trilogy release?

[Jim Ware 526]

17 hours ago, Jay said:

Why can't they re-compose the VFX onto a new scan of the negative?

 

17 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Do you know a film that did this? Seems cost-prohibitive.

 

The recent 4K releases of the Star Wars trilogy (although the work undertaken may have been initiated for the aborted 3D version). In any case, it's a massive undertaking. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

20 hours ago, Alan said:

It was SO refreshing to see Fellowship looking as "right" as it does on this set.

 

The problem shots for the entire trilogy probably don't add up to more than a minute of screen time and even then, you might have to know what you're looking for and be looking for problems to even notice.

 

Yeah, it's already too long as it is. Just close your eyes during the bad-looking parts.

[Bilbo 3,709]

20 hours ago, Alan said:

It was SO refreshing to see Fellowship looking as "right" as it does on this set.

 

The problem shots for the entire trilogy probably don't add up to more than a minute of screen time and even then, you might have to know what you're looking for and be looking for problems to even notice.

Its mostly nitpicking and grandstanding. 
 

But that’s the internet for you. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

On semi-relates news, the trilogy is getting a limited re-release on IMAX. I'm not suggesting that this was actually what was going through the filmmakers' mind in the remastering, but nevertheless the 4K versions kinda come across as IMAX-readied versions.

 

Its usual practice to DNR films for IMAX (the so-called IMAX DMR process) because the grains act as a point of reference to the size of the source: the bigger the source is magnified from its 24.9mm size, the bigger the grains get to the point that the audience becomes acutely aware that they're watching something that's been monsterously enlarged.

 

Its why 1080p digital footage plays fine on IMAX, while Super-16mm is generally not considered IMAX-worthy.

 

7 hours ago, Jim Ware said:

The recent 4K releases of the Star Wars trilogy (although the work undertaken may have been initiated for the aborted 3D version). In any case, it's a massive undertaking. 

 

As I understand it, some (but not all) of the optical effects in those films were redone. With opticals, you don't need to re-render anything, not to mention they're far less numerous than the VFX shots in the (considerably longer) Rings films.

 

CGI sequences like the re-inserted Jabba were 1080p upscales. To be fair, the camera negative for the Jabba scene doesn't exist anymore...

[crumbs 14,300]

The 4K Star Wars "remasters" lazily upscaled all the digital renders from 1996/1997, rather than re-compositing them over new scans of the negatives. And keep in mind a digital render from 1996 barely passes for 1080p (probably 1024px wide and based upon film scans made in the 90s, which is low resolution in itself).

 

The worst thing about those 4K remasters is how shots either side of a wipe have a noticeable quality decrease, because all the wipes were redone digitally for the SE. They didn't bother re-doing these for the 4K, they just upscaled the shitty renders from 1996. So it's really obvious when a wipe is about to happen because the image goes blurry at the end of each scene.

 

If they'd just left the damn wipes as opticals in 1996, this wouldn't have been a problem. But of course Lucas fucked that up too.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

On 2/2/2021 at 4:11 PM, Jay said:

It's been 20+ years and they haven't rescanned the original negatives for a proper restoration?

 

They haven't aged a day.

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

They've aged years.

[Bilbo 3,709]

The 4K release of the Star Wars Special Editions (the originals are never happening), Prequels, and LotR are probably as good as those films are ever going to look. They are not going to redo the CGI for home releases. It’s prohibitively expensive. 

[Jim Ware 526]

51 minutes ago, crumbs said:

If they'd just left the damn wipes as opticals in 1996, this wouldn't have been a problem. But of course Lucas fucked that up too.

 

The wipes were all redone optically from original negative elements in 1996/7 by Pacific Title. 

 

 

[Holko 9,499]

6 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

The 4K release of the Star Wars Special Editions (...) are probably as good as those films are ever going to look.

Nah, 4k77 and 4k83 look a shitload better.

 

6 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

They are not going to redo the CGI for home releases. It’s prohibitively expensive. 

That's why they'd just have to scan the damn originals, do some cleanup and grade them to look as they did in 77 and that's it.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

2 hours ago, Bilbo said:

The 4K release of the Star Wars Special Editions (the originals are never happening), Prequels, and LotR are probably as good as those films are ever going to look. They are not going to redo the CGI for home releases. It’s prohibitively expensive. 

 

I once thought as you do, but now I'm not so sure.

 

I think Peter Jackson will, eventually, do his long-rumored super deluxe everything but the kitchen sink Middle-earth "saga" release, in which case I can see him creating a new edit, with deleted scenes, etc. which would further bring the two trilogies in line with each other. And if that's the case, we'll get yet another remaster.

 

With regards to Star Wars, unless Disney is contractually prohibited from releasing the original versions of the OT, I think this will eventually happen, even if it's after Lucas is gone. If there's money to be made and nostalgia to be mined, Disney will be there. And for Star Wars at least, I don't think restoring the original versions would be prohibitely expensive, and in fact it's rumoured that it's already been done.

 

Until then, as @Holko said there are some really nice fan edits (4K77, D+77, Harmy) to suit every taste that preserve the OT and will probably look better in terms of coulour, and with more fidelity to the originals, than Disney will ever put out.

[Chen G. 3,943]

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

unless Disney is contractually prohibited from releasing the original versions of the OT

 

That's a very, VERY big "unless" right there, methinks.

 

Its a very George Lucas thing to have the exclusivity of "his" cuts of the films retained by contract.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

That's a very, VERY big "unless" right there, methinks.

 

Its a very George Lucas thing to have it written into the contract to not alter his versions of the films.

 

Perhaps. But speaking as a lawyer, I think that would be really hard to make contractually binding, given that no matter what, Disney owns the original negatives lock, stock & barrel. I'm just trying to imagine what the contractual language would be. You'd really have to get into the nitty gritty on what constitutes the "original" versions, as Star Wars has had more than one "version" since the day it was released . At the end of the day, I think will be hard to prevent Disney from doing what they wish with them if it comes to it.  In any event, IMO the films will likely continue to see revisions in one way or the other.

 

My suspicion (and it's just a guess) is that for now they're not putting out the originals out of respect to Lucas.

[Chen G. 3,943]

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

My suspicion (and it's just a guess) is that for now they're not putting out the originals out of respect to Lucas.

 

That seems to be true. I seem to recall Kathleen Kennedy is on record saying things to that effect.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if it goes deeper than that, though. JJ Abrams said he asked about it around Lucasfilm and was told "its not possible."

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

On 12/30/2020 at 12:20 AM, Quintus said:

I've been looking at the 1080p blu-rays of these films again, and bar the unfortunate green tint of the first film, I think I prefer the look of these over the samples of the 4K remaster I've seen. I was watching Forth Eorlingas again (in TTT), and the film grain just makes the whole thing feel more authentic and alive to my eye, and that's just one highlight. But more importantly (to me), I think the digital effects simply hold up better at 1920x1080 than they do at 3840x2160. In 4K, the vast armies look like little toy figures, with their own little high fidelity path finding and physics routines - thus making those originally amazing shots much less convincing and more unnatural now than they were previously. In the older blu-rays though, the lower (though still very fine resolution) helps considerably to mask the flaws in the aged 'Massive' software that powered, quite spectacularly, the battle sequences in the trilogy. In 1080p, the CG seams are lost in the melee much more than what is perceptible in the uncannily sharp clarity provided by 4k, and for me this is a signifiant downside which works against these films as timeless cinematic epics. I'll probably not purchase.

 

Big reason why I reckon 4K is more forgiving to older films without computer effects.

[Quintus 5,399]

There's pitfalls there too, though. Superman in 4K for eg, some of the early Krypton shots are so dominated by grain that it overwhelms the image, and IMO harms it. I think a DNR pass can be justified in certain instances. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

Cleaning is ultimately a part of any mastering/restoration process to some extent, yes.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I don't really follow this kinda news closely, has there been any further information about the editions that are supposed to be coming this Summer?  The ones that will have new bonus content or whatever.

[Jay 37,287]

I don't think so

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Hmmm, I don't know how far ahead these things are usually announced but Summer is just around the corner.  Maybe they meant southern hemisphere summer.... I'd forgive them for that since they're in New Zealand 

[Jay 37,287]

Maybe they'll be Holiday 2021 discs now instead of Summer 2021

[Jay 37,287]

THE CANNES PREVIEW WILL BE INCLUDED!!!!!!

 

Quote

Cannes Film Festival Presentation Reel / Cannes Film Festival Presentation  026: 50 from 12

The Lord of the Rings Cast Reunion: The Fellowship of the Ring / The Lord of the Rings: The Companions - Reunion of the actors    039: 37 o.Al.

The Lord of the Rings Cast Reunion: The Return of the King / The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - reunion of the cast    032: 23 o.Al.

The Lord of the Rings Cast Reunion: The Two Towers / The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - reunion of the actors    029: 48 o.Al.

 

https://www.fsk.de/?seitid=550&tid=70&vvid=130552

[Holko 9,499]

...and... the... deleted scenes?

[mstrox 6,647]

Yeah, more group retrospective interviews would not have been my preferred content here…good news about the Cannes preview though 

[Chen G. 3,943]

1 hour ago, Holko said:

...and... the... deleted scenes?

 

Pretty sure the above isn't ALL that's included in the piece.

[Jay 37,287]

It's just what the German rating board has rated so far

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

THE CANNES PREVIEW WILL BE INCLUDED!!!!!!

 

 

https://www.fsk.de/?seitid=550&tid=70&vvid=130552

 

That is PHENOMENAL!!!! It's been the #1 thing I've been waiting for (along with the presentation they made to New Line).  When they said there would be "one" new feature with this set, I didn't imagine that would be it.  I was thinking it would just be a retrospective with new interviews and that's it.

 

Hopefully there's more to come, including deleted scenes, but as we discussed before, I've been skeptical that we'd get those this time around. If the studio wasn't willing to pay for deleted scenes a few years ago, I'm not sure what would have changed in the interim.  But here's hoping they still have some surprises in store.

 

Thanks for the update Jason!

[Chen G. 3,943]

21 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

along with the presentation they made to New Line

 

I personally find that even more interesting than the Cannes reel.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

Yeah, both would be nice.

 

I wonder what they'll do for The Hobbit. Seems a bit early for a retrospective.

[Faleel 5,340]

Hopefully the Cannes preview includes the full alternate BotF!

 

@Kühni

[Kühni 485]

.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

On 8/9/2021 at 2:18 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

I wonder what they'll do for The Hobbit. Seems a bit early for a retrospective.

 

They might have trouble getting a group together for reminiscing anyway, given that we know much of the cast does not necessarily look back on the experience as fondly as the LOTR group does.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

18 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

They might have trouble getting a group together for reminiscing anyway, given that we know much of the cast does not necessarily look back on the experience as fondly as the LOTR group does.

 

Interesting, I didn't know that. I know McKellan apparently didn't enjoy his experience as much the second time around, but I wasn't aware of how other members of the cast regarded their experiences (outside of the interviews in the Appendices, which admittedly were done contemporaneously with the filming).

 

But now that you mention it, I don't recall hearing much from any of them after the films, which is definitely a contrast with the LOTR cast, most of whom still speak glowingly about the experience even 20 years later.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I've seen a lot of the Dwarf cast speaking very fondly about their experiences, especially Stephen Hunter, and Graham McTavish who moved to NZ after filming...

 

There's this from just after filming, but there was a more recent interview that I've been trying to find for a while. I'll add it when I find it.

 

 

[Holko 9,499]

I've seen Dwarf cast talk about how they felt bad that they got sidelined and overlooked by the end, getting in makeup for hours then showing up on set to not even be needed.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I've seen that in an interview of John Callen. Not so much from the others. Not to mention actors complaining about that sort of thing has happened since time immemorial.

 

There's been a recent interview with Callen which seems to be more positive, although I didn't watch it in its entirety just yet.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

While interesting and certainly entertaining, I tend to regard the interviews in the Hobbit Appendices with a grain of salt. For one, they were done while the production was filming, so what is the cast going to do, complain? And even if they did complain at the time, it’s not as if that would have made it into the Appendices anyway.

 

Over time people will start talking or writing their books and one day we’ll get the full story of what really happened with those movies, the good and the bad, because a lot of what’s on the record I think is half truths, or at best incomplete.  

[Chen G. 3,943]

I think the interviews for the appendices for The Battle of the Five Armies were conducted well after the film's release, but your point is well taken that its much more telling to look at what the actors think about the production with several years of hindsight, rather than immediately afterwards.

 

Like I said, there was an interview with a substantial number of the Dwarf cast from 2020. It was wonderful, and I've been looking for it regardless of this thread but as of yet I can't find it.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

There are still stories coming out about things that happened on Kubrick's sets. Hell we're still learning about things that happened during the making of Gone With the Wind.

 

Such is the nature of these matters, but in time all foul things come forth. What is buried in the snow is revealed in the thaw. These things take time, and often people are reluctant to talk for many reasons, mostly career related. But I'd still like to know the real, full story of Del Toro's departure, because I suspect we're only getting part of that picture. I also don't believe the official line on a host of other things, from the story's love triangle to the decision to make three films. And what was the power dynamic between Jackson and the studio? At best, I think we've only gotten part of the truth, because at the moment it's in no one's interest to talk. And while only tangentially related to The Hobbit, I'd like to know what went down between Jackson and Howard Shore during King Kong and how it impacted their working relationship on the prequel trilogy.

 

It's a pity we haven't even gotten a proper "Making of" book on The Lord of the Rings, to say nothing of The Hobbit. There have been a couple biographies of Peter Jackson, both of which were unsatisfactory and focused more on the business side of making the films, and there was Sean Astin's book, which was a fun read but also biased and agenda driven.  So for now I'd even settle for an official JW Rinzler (RIP) style book, and then maybe one day we'll get The Secret History of Middle-earth.

 

[Chen G. 3,943]

Quote

There have been a couple biographies of Peter Jackson, both of which were unsatisfactory

 

Really? I love Sibley's A Filmmaker's Journey. I think its a great book.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

There's nothing wrong with it, but it's unsatisfactory (IMO) because it's very limited in scope in terms of the actual making of the films. There's some good stuff in there, especially about the early days with Jackson pitching the project & developing it, but it's far from the comprehensive "making of" book I'm looking for.  Which of course the book isn't even designed to be.

[Chen G. 3,943]

There's a ton of information about these productions, you just need to do the legwork of crossreferencing quite a few sources, from Sibley's book through Kristin Thompson's to Ian Nathan's, and a number of the books that go into the artwork, a heap of interviews and so forth.

 

I've dabbled in it a little, for both trilogies. Suffice to say that, unlike with Star Wars, I don't think there's been any major obfustification of the truth around these films.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

I know, and I've read and watched a lot of it. But I still want a comprehensive "making of" book.  Which admittedly may never come.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

So.... this is the packaging...

 

 

How I miss the leatherbound aesthetic of the original EEs.  Also, at 31 discs if it doesn't have the appendices, I'm not buying.  What would even be on all those discs otherwise??? We'll see what's officially announced soon I guess.

 

 

 

[Holko 9,499]

Ugh.

[Jay 37,287]

Yea that's a lot of discs, sheesh.  Here's the direct link

 

https://www.wowhd.co.uk/middle-earth-31-disc-ultimate-collectors-edition/883929704743

[Disco Stu 15,495]

That 196.23 GBP converts to $270 USD.  Which isn't bad for 31 discs in the abstract at least.

 

I haven't bought any LOTR release since the original EE DVDs.  I was planning on buying these under the assumption it would include every existing special feature....

[Chen G. 3,943]

The idea is that the existing special features can then be accessed freely via the digital code.

 

Since they're not very high-res (the Lord of the Rings ones are in SD!) one really needn't have them on disc.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

Those 31 discs certainly look impressive, but given that the only versions I watch are the extended ones, and I have those on DVD, BD and UHD, I see no reason to upgrade.

 

As I suspected, apparently there will be no deleted scenes on this release. That said, the Cannes reel is nice, and something I’ve been wanting to see for a while. And the reunion will be fun to watch. But overall, this is hardly the definitive edition many of us had hoped for.

 

[Chen G. 3,943]

8 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But overall this is hardly the definitive edition a lot of us were hoping for.

 

So it seems, unfortunately.