[quote=""Fingolfin""]I had heard rumors las summer that a huge LotR EE package was coming out with all kinds of deleted scenes that weren't even in the EE's (like the goblin chase in FotR) and all kinds of goodies, so I foolishly assumed that since I was paying eighty five freaking dollars for it that it had to be that famed package. I was wrong. [/quote]

[quote=""Thranduil""]New Line was probably hoping to release the EE's when the Hobbit comes out.[/quote]

The speculation has long been that the EEs would be released in a set so lavish with new goodies as to induce everyone to buy it again, even though they already had the DVD EE set (which was fairly overflowing with features). Nothing solid or definitive about what a set might contain has ever been said, although there has been enough idle commentary from the Jackson camp to whet everyone's appetites. Jackson joked multiple times on the LOTR EE commentary tracks about deleted or alternate scenes, and maybe we'd see them on an LOTR 25th anniversary edition (which will probably work out about right, if they coincide it with the theatrical release of The Hobbit :crazy2 . More seriously, he has said he's not a fan of deleted scenes as they are usually presented on DVDs, where they are free-floating with no context. He said he would only want to show them within the context of a documentary, where snippets of them might be shown. He has also said that he thinks the existing EEs are long enough and that they would not be well served as movies by adding even more scenes back into them.

More recently, Michael Pellerin, who was the set producer for the EE DVDs, gave a very interesting interview, which suggested, among other things, that Jackson hopes to film extra scenes for the next release. My head still spins when I think of that. For years now, we've debated on this site what we thought needed "fixed" or changed in the movies, and it was primarily things that could not be fixed without new filming. Well, we still don't know what Jackson has in mind, but if you scroll back about two months in this thread, you can read the whole Pellerin interview. Jackson has also e xp ressed desire to do a documentary about the production of the movies from his own perspective as director. All the existing documentaries have been from a 3rd person perspective, but Jackson apparently has an itch to tell the story his way.

In any case, the smart money has said to e xp ect the EEs to hit BD in association with The Hobbit's theatrical bow. The endless delays in putting The Hobbit before the camera would seem to delay the EE set as well, though there's no reason they couldn't already be working on it. Sure,the new movies themselves will get the lion's share of attention, but the existing EE DVD sets were produced (except for ROTK) while a movie of the trilogy was in post-production.

One thing I do believe is that Jackson is a fan of loaded special editions, which he certainly showed with the EE DVDs. They are considered among the best special edition DVDs (we're talking supplements here, not critical assessment of added footage) ever produced. On account of that, I think when the EE BDs come, Jackson will make sure they were worth waiting for.

A corollary to that is I suspect he had little to nothing to do with the release of the TEs on BD, other than that his people supervised new HD transfers and audio mixes. I think that that was purely the studio going back to the well again. I never bought the TE/EE combo releases with Costa Botes documentaries that they released a couple of years ago, but I did take the plunge on the TE BDs since the EEs are hanging out there in the indefinite future and my new 65" TV was just aching to show LOTR. Also, Best Buy had a retailer exclusive of a mini-Anduril packed with the BDs, so any reservations I had went out the window.

[quote=""Valkrist""]They still exist, though most of their interest now belongs to Warner Bros. who was their parent company all along and bailed them out of debt. The cost was co-founders Michael Lynn and Bob Shaye's jobs, along with direct control over which movies New Line would produce (ie. only those determined to be safe-bet moneymakers as opposed to more risky projects.)

So in other words, yes... New Line still exists and you will see their famous logo appear at the beginning of films, but they are now under the watchful eye of Warner (Big) Brothers.[/quote]
Bob Shaye & Micheal Lynn deserved to have their jobs taken from them.
My understanding is that Warner Bros. motivation in moving in on them and taking over was because of the more than 20 laws suits filed against New Line by every single company and person involved in making LOTR.
Every lawsuit was the result of unpaid royalties due to them.

In the film Shakespeare in Love, there's a line about how to pay the actors and the response is; "Give them a share in the profits", followed by, "There's never any profit", "Exactly"...."I think you may be on to something here..."

LOTR's profits were huge, Shaye & Lynn were responsible for dolling out those funds and they didn't. These royalties exceeded 300 Million dollars.

Personally, I'm glad Warner Bros. stepped in. Greed kills good business;
As we are all witnessing in the failure to give The Hobbit a green light. MGM has financial woes, they want too big a chunk of Hobbits profits.

It reminds me of the UAW in the auto industry, demanding so much, insisting they get it, and in the end they get no job at all- in other words; How about nothing at all (now that's real sensible).

I'm sorry to say that we may witness this with the Hobbit; my guess is that MGM is insisting on the first billion in profits up front... "and then the rest of you can have what goes beyond that".

Why One Billion? Because MGM's debt exceeds 3 billion, and one third of that amount would get them back on track in the financial world (Wallstreet)'s eyes. If I'm right about this speculation, then we may see MGM go down and take the Hobbit with it. Sad, but I've seen this happen too many times in too many industries.

Maybe the Kiwi's (NZ) government will offer a "Bailout".

Yeah, the feud and lawsuits between those guys and PJ, Saul Zaentz, the Tolkien Estate, and several of the secondary actors in the LOTR films was well documented. I just figured Fingolfin already knew about that part. I completely agree that they deserved to be sacked 100%. Beyond that though, and despite the fact that LOTR brought massive amounts of revenue into New Line, it was all squandered in subsquent movie projects that fared very poorly at the box-office, like The Last Mimzy and The Golden Compass. Couple that with the endless lawyer fees and ongoing lawsuit settlements, and New Line was fast running out of money. That's when Warner had to swoop in and save the studio, but cleaning house while doing so.

Bob Shaye is from the Detroit area, I had a chance to go see him speak but decided against it because I just wanted to go slam him verbally, and as they say, "If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all".

What good is there in stooping to his level; this rang in my mind over and over.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Bob Shaye has certainly earned his share of vilification, but one thing we have to keep in mind: it was he who agreed to let PJ do LOTR, and not only that, but told PJ to do 3 movies, not 2. We got a much fuller and more faithful LOTR than we would have gotten but for Shaye's faith in PJ and Tolkien. If he hadn't agreed to do LOTR, Miramax would have gone ahead without PJ and done a one-movie version of it. Imagine how heartbreakingly wretched that would have been.

Yuck, that would have been awful! One movie, why on earth would they even do it that way? Why go to all the trouble to make such an incredible work if you were going to just cut a corner and do one film?


I was aware of the lawsuits, I didn't realize how extensive they were...even the Tolkien Estate needed to file one.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]Yuck, that would have been awful! One movie, why on earth would they even do it that way? Why go to all the trouble to make such an incredible work if you were going to just cut a corner and do one film?[/quote]

I guess because all they could think about was the money it was going to cost, and they didn't have faith that it would succeed, so they wanted to cut their losses. Just think if they had done a one-movie version, and it had been successfully financially; then they'd have been kicking themselves for not having done a 3-movie version, LOL!

Well your right Olorin, we do have Bob Shaye to thank for that call, but I liken it to finding some good thing to say about Gordon Gecko (Wallstreet).

Thanks to PJ, when Miramax proposed one film, he said he wouldn't do it. Thanks to PJ he was willing to look for other financing elsewhere. And thanks to PJ's resourcefulness, he recognized that in order to pull off three films on the $100 million budget, he began a new idea; shoot all primary footage at the same time for all three films.

I'm aware (and grateful) that the success of FOTR earnings allowed the budget to increase for TT & Rotk, but I doubt Bob Shaye's earnings were going into those decisions. It was those awesome Kiwi's who took the reigns and reinvested in all those improvements.

There is a great business lesson here for all; reinvestment pays off! Weta kept themselves on a beer budget when they could afford champagne. Look at where they are now, top of the list in FX business.

Do you think that young chap, Christian Rivers was thinking he'd become a multi-millionaire when his was drawing those storyboards earning (guess) less than $35K per year?

I'm getting way off topic; but I know most of you are quite young and I want to point out that perseverance and patients pays off in the long run. "If you build it, they will come!"

I've just recently recieved my copies of lord of the rings on blu ray. Why does it come in this widescreen format, every blu ray movie I have is formated to fit the whole tv which in my e xp erience brought out the true hd in movies. I cant even stand to watch these movies like this esp lotr with two dumb black bars across the top and bottom.

The black bars are called "letterboxing." This is done to preserve the movie's original aspect ratio without any loss of image, which is often done with zooming or cropping. Trust me, it is far more preferable to actually have the black bars there than not, as that would mean some of the picture has been cut out. I don't have LOTR on Bluray, but I'm guessing the transfer is in the 2.39:1 ratio which, in order to fully fit the image into a 16:9 widescreen tv, requires the black bars be used.

Have read here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

Those "dumb black bars" are ways of compensating for the dumb square-shaped screens that didn't have cinematic aspect ratios in mind in their design. I'm kind of surprised there is still a lack of information out there regarding this. That's the way the film was shot.

You may want it to fit your whole screen but you're definitely not going to get the full PICTURE. In order for a rectangle to fit over a square, the longer ends are going to be cropped off. And that's not to mention most TVs are widescreen these days. So if you're going for "full screen" movies (not to be confused with full image) you'll probably get a square on your widescreen TV with black bars on the left and right rather than up and down. Mind you, this is post-crop already. And if you're totally clueless, you'll put it on a zoom feature which will fill your whole TV, ultimately presenting the film in a cropped, stretched, and zoomed picture. But who cares if we totally destroy the composition and picture quality as long as it fills the whole screen, right?

(It's okay, I'm still drawing diagrams for my grandfather even today and he still doesn't get it.)

I'm quite sure the decision to keep the full wide screen version in tact for BR was as simple as understanding that, to cut a hairs width from that film's incredible panorama would be considered blasphemy.

Nothing was more telling about the destruction of a film than an AMC presentation on letterboxing a few years ago, where Martin Scorsese commented alongside two identical movie clips, albeit they were small. One was in full cinematic format, the other on the "full tv" picture. The movie running was Ben Hur, and it was incredible how different it is, and how much it is cut out.

It's like saying that you are a painter, but someone comes along and cuts out the bottom corners because they only like the center. That's what your describing by complaining about the letterboxing. To the person who took great care about how that shot was composed, it's a destruction of their true work.

And especially for LotR, cutting panoramic scenes is a sin, considering how utterly beautiful the New Zealand landscape is.

Cheers,

Guy

Definitely. Not only that, I can't stand how people think a camera is point & shoot dead-center. There's a basic compositional rule in painting, photography, and filmmaking. Don't always put your subject in the center of the frame. Many films use the sides of the frame to great effect in their compositions and when entire people or objects are cut, that's bad. When they shoot the film they take into consideration every thing in the composition. It's not like some window aimed directly at the most important thing. If it's in the frame at all, it's important.

I think I learned this most easily when I was eleven and the Phantom Menace had just come out. I was comparing widescreen and full screen one day. I noticed the scene on Naboo when Jar-Jar, Qui-Gon, and Obi-Wan meet in the swamps, Jar-Jar and Obi are standing on the sides with Qui in the middle. The full screen version had to pan (which is a computerized effect at this point, NOT an original camera movement) left and right to get the two characters that were otherwise cropped off the frame entirely if not speaking.

On a featurette on the old laserdisc of Star Trek IV, Leonard Nimoy e xp lained why he loved the letterbox format as it preserved the director's composition. He showed both the letterbox and the cropped version of the scene where Kirk, Spock, and Jillian are in the cab of the pickup. In the letterbox version, you see all three at once. In the pan and scan version, the view has to pan back and forth between the characters to feature the one who's speaking...and then you don't necessarily see how the others are reacting.

For anyone interested, Amazon's selling the LOTR Blurays for $8 each as part of their "Black Friday Week"

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Fellow ... 957&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Two-To ... 957&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Return ... 957&sr=1-1

GW... i was just coming in here to say that... as much as I don't want to be double dipped... 7.99 is heck of a deal!

Agreed. I'm very tempted...

I saw these in an advertisement the other day...I feel so cheated! I wasted 70 dollars in FYE gift cards on my LotR BDs! :

[quote=""Fingolfin""]I saw these in an advertisement the other day...I feel so cheated! I wasted 70 dollars in FYE gift cards on my LotR BDs! : [/quote]
I know how you feel Fin; I could have gotten all three EE's for the price I paid for one. Lesson learned. I'm more patient about purchases now.

Well, I succumbed to the almighty double dipping devil. 7.99 each was just too good too pass up, thats 3 for the price of 1. i know they arent EE's but still it was a good price. I know i am going to cuss myself while watching them when I miss an EE scene!

Thedigitalbits.com says that their sources at Warner Home Video are saying to e xp ect the EEs on BD this year:

[font=arial, helvetica, courier, *]What's more, our sources are NOW telling us that WHV (and their now in-house New Line label) is ALSO planning to release Peter Jackson's long-awaited The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Extended Editions on Blu-ray sometime this year. No kidding. We suspect that, now that The Hobbit films are finally about to begin filming, the studio is eager to get more product on store shelves to keep the franchise fresh in the minds of fans. The Extended Rings films on BD are the obvious choice for this year. Farther down the line, of course, there will be the obvious Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D versions of The Hobbit films, and sooner or later an "ultimate" box set of all the films with all new extras custom created by Jackson. Anyway, our sources tell us to e xp ect some kind of official news on all this (re: Rings: Extended and Kubrick) from the studio in the next several weeks. [/font]

While we're all wanting these, of course, it seems a bit soon. In the absence of any other factors, I'd think they'd do this shortly before the first Hobbit movie is due to hit theaters...and it's almost 2 years away. But fact is, we're not in the absence of other factors. One of PJ's cohorts said some months back that they planned to film new content for the EE BDs (we've been assuming that would be during production of The Hobbit). Unless they do the new filming essentially immediately upon beginning to film The Hobbit, I don't see how they could have the EEs ready for release by this coming Christmas, which would be the most logical time for them if they're coming in 2011. And it's rather hard to imagine them filming new LOTR content immediately when the entire Hobbit is yet to be filmed, and has already had so many delays (unless the new LOTR content strongly features Christopher Lee or Ian Holm, and they are worried that they should film them ASAP while they are still alive). Of course, it's entirely possible the the previous information about new LOTR content was wrong or completely misinterpreted. I guess we may know more about the alleged BD release schedule in a few weeks, according to the blurb.

Personally, I don't want an "ultimate" box set with all new extras. I think there are plenty of existing extras for the LOTR sets, and all I want after the Hobbit EEs are out on BD is just to be able to buy an empty box to put all the Middle-earth BDs in, such as New Line made available for the EE DVDs (well, available to those of us in the US anyway...still can't figure out why they didn't also have it available in Canada).

Lets see, we are probably going to see the LOTR EE on BD with limited new extras, then we will have the Ultimate LOTR EE on BD with lots of new extras, then we are going to have TE Hobbit on BD followed by the Hobbit EE on BD then ultimately we are going to have The super duper ultimate middle earth saga of the Hobbit and LOTR EE BD with 39382 hours of extra content!

Edit: And I already did the one thing that I swore I would never do, and that was buy the LOTR TEs on BD! I said I would never buy the TEs again, but before Christmas, Amazon.com had them on and excellent price, so I decided to go for them, almost a 3 for 1 price.

I snapped the TEs up when they first hit BD. Any misgivings I had were outweighed by the fact that Best Buy was selling them with a miniature Anduril. And I certainly don't regret having them, sword aside. They look wonderful and there are subtle differences beyond the lack of extra or extended scenes. PJ sometimes altered dialogue going from the TE version to the EE version.

Well, I have finally made the leap from my venerable yet still extremely reliable Sony LCD 50" Grand Wega which only output 1080i and with no HDMI inputs to a 1" thick Samsung 6500 series 55" LED with a picture quality that is currently blowing my socks off. This thing is so slim and sexy that I can barely see it when looking at it sideways.

I bought the highest quality model available that was non-3D as I believe the technology has a long way to mature still. Furthermore, the scarcity of content and the prospect of wearing bulky glasses prevented me from springing the extra $$$ for the 3D version.

What does any of this have to do with LOTR on blu-ray?

Well, it just so happens that the free movie bundled with my Samsung BD player was none other than The Fellowship of the Ring. I've been using it as a sort of test disc to adjust all the video and sound settings on my new system, and I have to say the movie looks very impressive. I have tried some normal dvds upconverted and they look near to BD quality, but I have yet to pop the LOTR EEs for comparison.

At any rate, it feels weird not having the other two movies to go along with my FOTR BD, but I refuse to buy them. So, bring on the EEs on BD, cuz now I'm ready!

Congratulations on the new TV! I assume this is the non-3D version of the one you posted a link to sometime back?

Odd that they bundled only one of the LOTR movies with the BD player. Bundle all of them or none of them, but one? Ironically, according to reviews, the FOTR BD was the least visually impressive of the three. Personally, I thought it looked great...lots of fine detail.

As to the LOTR EE DVDs, I think they look very near to BD quality when upconverted and seen on a big TV. Since they are each split over two discs, the compression is mild enough that the quality is not too impaired.

I have a few CDs that came with bonus DVDs that have maybe 20 minutes of content, and they are basically indistinguishable from BD quality when upconverted.

But anyway, congrats again!

[quote=""Valkrist""]Well, I have finally made the leap from my venerable yet still extremely reliable Sony LCD 50" Grand Wega which only output 1080i and with no HDMI inputs to a 1" thick Samsung 6500 series 55" LED with a picture quality that is currently blowing my socks off. This thing is so slim and sexy that I can barely see it when looking at it sideways.

[/quote]

I only have a 42" LCD tv.... thats not fair!!!! Went to the movies with some friends last night and I said... "I sure would like to play CoD on this screen!! haha"

On LOTR related note...I still havent gotten around to watching this BD LOTR yet.. need to get on it

No, Olorin, it is not the non-3D version of the model I linked some time ago. That one is the elusive 9000 series which is very rare, and apparently only available in the US market and not in Canada due to marketing and licensing agreements, or so say Samsung reps. The 8000 and 7000 are 3D models also, and the 6000 series (and lower,) which I got, are the non-3D.

Only the 9000 has that incredible 0.3" thickness (the width of a pencil.) Mine is three times that thickness, but still amazing by comparison to an average tv these days.

Anyway, about the FOTR dvd, I thought the same as you did: should be all or none, until my gf made a very good point - it's a good way for them to make people go out and buy the other two, therefore increasing sales. Of course, this rules out buying them as a set, but it does make sense.

As I've shopped for flat screens, the Samsung's have been the stand out for me.
Recently saw some of these newer models and was equally amazed at how thin they are.

As this purchase has so aptly eluded me financially for so long, I've had time to watch the prices continue to drop and larger thinner screens fit into my intended budget. So keep me updated on your new TV Val, it'll be so obsolete by the time I'm ready to buy, they'll be discontinuing it. I'll be spending less than I plan and getting more

Oh, yeah... no doubt about it. It used to be just computers that far outpaced anything else insofar as being current, but tvs have sure caught up. The moment you buy it, something better comes along. Thing is, you have to take that plunge at some point and just end the waiting game because it's pure torture if you don't, and you're always second guessing-yourself.

If you go for one of the Samsung 3D models, skip the 7000's altogether and go for the 8500.

As for mine, I'm beyond pleased and nothing's going to take that feeling away for a very long time. As far as prices, it does pay to wait just a little. The model I bought is normally $2200, but Futureshop was having a sale on it for $1899. So I buy it, and while checking their stuff online a couple of days later, I see the price is now reduced to $1799 for another special sale. So I march in with my sales receipt, wave their 'price-match' policy in their face, and get $100 back.

I'll have had my 65" plasma a year already come Tuesday. On the one hand, I find that very hard to believe. On the other, it's hard to believe I haven't always had it. In any case, it's definitely a no-regrets decision. I'm still amazed by it.

On a related note, I recently realized I have my rear channel speakers reversed, right for left, and they've been that way since I moved into the new house, almost 4 years ago. What finally clued me in? In FOTR when Frodo is scrounging in the wicker hamper looking for the Ring while Gandalf nervously stands by, a crow caws from one of the rear corners...and Gandalf looks in the wrong direction. So at some point, I need to pull things out and swap the wires. Unfortunately, unless there's enough play in the myriad wires attached to the back of the receiver to pull just the receiver itself forward, I will have to wait till that mythical day when I get a new receiver and hang the TV on the wall, because my component rack is far too heavy to move now. It was tough to move previously, just with the weight of the components plus my old tube TV. Now it has a 150 lb plasma sitting on it, and I'm afraid to try to move it, for fear of either hurting myself, or toppling the TV into the floor. Neither would be good....

150 lbs?!?

Mine weighs 54 lbs.

Well, technically it weighs 135...but the stand weighs another 15.

It's a big mama.

Yeah plasmas are heavy, that's one of there downfalls.
I can totally relate to the wiring and moving the entire component rack issue. It's a wait til you have to, or sounds effects being in the wrong place driving you to get it done.

I have only ever noticed the sound reversal on two movies, and only one of them (FOTR) would get watched with any regularity, so I'm definitely waiting till I can take care of everything all at once.

Ummmm.... I was sure there was a thread discussing the extended BDs but this will do.

So I just got a pre-order notification from Amazon of the extended edition trilogy on blu-ray. But it also has that.. word in the title. The word I mean is "limited". Limited edition extended edition LOTR trilogy blu-ray? Limited edition of the one version everyone wants? Limited to? Until? I'm confused. Anyone know more about this? If it's really limited, I'm going to pre-order it ASAP (as soon as I find out more information, rather). But part of me knows this is just a ploy to quadruple dip when they ultimately release an even more extended version.


These movies are such a freaking mess when it comes to owning them for home video. Total fail.

I got that email from Amazon this morning as well.... when is the super duper deluxe middle earth extra special collection coming out?

Maybe it's the "Limited Patience" edition, which is how I feel about all this.

"Lord of the Rings" Extended Goes Blu


Monday March 7th 2011 11:26AM

Amazon.com have posted up an entry for the Blu-ray release of the extended editions of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
Though there's some ugly cover art and a pretty good trailer, no date for the release is specified other than a generic 2011/2012 one. The price is currently set at $84.
There's nothing really in the way of new features, but all the previous special features from the DVDs will be ported over to the Blu-ray release. All three films will boast 1080p video and DTS HD-MA 5.1 audio transfers.
The packaging calls this a 'Limited' extended edition. No word if that means only a certain number of copies, or more likely the set will only be available for a certain amount of time before being pulled from the shelves - much like Disney does with its animated releases.

Ugly indeed. Glad they agree.


I would like this set to NOT use a blue strip for the "blu-ray" crap. Either make the whole set blue-themed like ROTK's EE case, or make the strip sepia or something. And as a whole, that design is pretty bad. The theatrical blu-ray set was even better!

If the blue strip is removed, all the ignorant and unwashed masses at Walmart won't get it that it's a blu-ray set and won't buy it. Bet you a hundred bucks that's the exact thought some marketing exec had before making that design decision. Either that or Sony is so high on itself that they have some clause that demands that blue strip be attached to every disc case ever made.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Either that or Sony is so high on itself that they have some clause that demands that blue strip be attached to every disc case ever made.[/quote]

I'd say it's 100% a Sony clause. Makes perfect sense that the Blu-Ray logo TM be present.

I agree it ruins quality packaging in this case, and would look better on a black background.

I think they just chalk it up to their victory in the HD war over the evil red colors of the opposing team. But now that they've won, I wish they'd just get over themselves.

[quote=""Thranduil""]I'd say it's 100% a Sony clause. Makes perfect sense that the Blu-Ray logo TM be present.

I agree it ruins quality packaging in this case, and would look better on a black background.[/quote]



Actually I forgot to mention. The Apocalypse Now BD I have has no such blue strip. Yep, the logo is there (I don't mind the logo at all) but I'm completely relieved they excluded the colors considering the cover is black and red. There are many more BDs on my shelf that weren't given the same care.

Yeah, I'd nearly forgotten about the colour-coded war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Back then it was easy to distinguish which version you were holding before you bought it - blue or red - (because apparently it was too hard to simply read the packaging.)

What they should do, especially since this is a box set, is to make that strip a peel-away feature. A lot of DVD and BD packaging has that, where the entire back cover can sometimes be pulled off because it's designed to be that way. That would be a neat way to make all the 'tards out there realize they have a BD movie in their hands with the blue stripe, but then let the rest of us who care about aesthetics be rid of the thing by letting us peel it off.

The peel away feature would be great and the more I look at that photo, I'm wondering if that's what it is. I noticed right away that the blue strip doesn't seem to have the same reflection as the box at the corner (almost looks photoshopped on the box).

Anyway, how it's limited may not be specified, but I pre-ordered mine just in case it is limited. Chances are this particular packaging is what's limited. I sure as heck am not going to be kicking myself in the butt finding out I missed out.

I guess I just started a timer for my TV & BluRay player purchase, hopefully it will be a year

Exactly how I feel, Thrandrew. I may be getting suckered, but it sure will work in this case. If I miss out and they don't offer a better version anytime soon I'll be pretty peeved.

Man you guys are mean today....

A couple of observations.

First, I moved all these posts to the current thread. We didn't have one e xp licitly on the EEs coming to BD, but we did have one on LOTR generally coming to BD, and we had extensively discussed the EEs in it. So moved they are, Precious.

Second, the blue strip is almost certainly part of the pull-off back-of-the-box thing. I'm pretty sure that's how the TE BD set was, and many/most BD box sets are done that way.

No release date has been set for this.

According to Amazon and the Digital Bits, it will include all previous EE extras, including not only all the supplements from the spiffy book-looking original EE DVDs, but also the Costa Botas documentaries from the combined TE/EE DVDs a few years ago.

Each movie will have 3 discs: one BD and two DVDs. The BD will contain the movie, the Easter Eggs, and audio commentaries, and the Costa Botas documentaries. The DVDs will be the same as Discs 3 and 4 of the original EE DVDs. Apparently none of that material was shot in hi def, so it will be on DVDs.

Here's some info from The Digital Bits. Bill Hunt of that site has lots of contacts in industry and gets plenty of inside info, since he regularly lauds the studios when they do a good job with a release (and lambasts them when not).

I've communicated with the folks at Warner Home Video and have learned that their official announcement of the Lord of the Rings Extended Blu-rays is still a few weeks off. The reason is, there are some details about the release that are not yet 100% finalized. While Amazon's reveal IS authentic, and you CAN pre-order the title now, the finer points of the release aren't yet official. SO... I've asked for clarification on a number of the details, as you can imagine, and have been advised that my questions will be answered as soon as they're able to once the details are locked in stone, closer to the title's official announcement. In the meantime, everything we know at the moment is posted below, and just know that while it's all mostly accurate, it's still subject to change. Rest assured, we'll post additional official details as soon as the studio provides them.

......

Amazon.com has just revealed the cover art, packaging and price for Warner's forthcoming The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy - Limited Extended Edition Blu-ray Disc box set, along with most of the details. SRP for the set is $119.98, but they've got it available for pre-order NOW for just $83.99 (about 30% off). It looks like it's going to be a 9-disc set. Each extended edition film will be included on a Blu-ray disc in high-definition, along with all of the commentaries from the Extended Edition DVD releases, the MTV Movie Awards Easter egg clips for each film AND (and this is a nice and much appreciated touch) the Costa Botes "behind the scenes" documentaries for each film that were on the Limited Edition DVD releases (the ones that had BOTH the theatrical and extended versions of the films via seamless branching). Then, each film in the Blu-ray set will also include both of The Appendices DVD discs for each film that were included in the previous Extended Edition DVD sets. That adds up to 9 discs total, and it appears to mean that if you buy the Blu-ray, nearly every single extra feature from the previous DVDs carries over. Of course, there do not appear to be any new extras, but then we didn't really e xp ect any until Peter Jackson gets around to working on an ultimate box set of these films plus the two Hobbit films (which start shooting in New Zealand later this month). So there you go. Amazon.com indicates that the box will include access to Digital Copy versions of the films as well - you get a code in the box to enable a digital download. The thing I'm most excited about here - aside from the fact that we're finally getting the extended editions in high-defintion - is that all of the 4-disc DVD extras have carried over AND they've added in the Costa Botes documentaries too. I'd hoped for that, but didn't e xp ect it to happen, so I'm pleased to see it did.

Keep in mind that Warner Home Video hasn't yet made their official announcement of the title, and I've been told it may not happen for a few weeks yet. As such, there may be details we don't know yet about the extras, and we don't have an official street date yet. [Rest assured, I've asked WHV for clarification on a number of issues - I'll post anything I hear back on The Bits as soon as it comes in.] In any case, here's the official cover art for the box set - both the front of the case and the opened packaging. Based on this, it looks as if the discs each come in their own plastic BD case which slips into an outer box with a closable cover - or that cover might just be a replica map of Middle Earth that also fits in the packaging. It also looks as if each film comes with its own booklet. Anyway, here's what it looks like (don't forget you can click on the images to pre-order)...

....

Alright, that &^%&* forum software deleted the images, one of which was the inside of the set. You can go to thedigitalbits.com to see it, or go elsewhere online.

Personally, I have no problem with the external box art, and I think the insides look pretty good.

We can all carp about how we wish we were getting that super ultra extra special BD edition with lots of new content, that we've been teased about for some time. Realistically, that's at least two years down the road. In the mean time, if you have to have the EEs on BD, here they come (even though the DVDs look pretty darn good on a big TV).

Did I pre-order the set?

Does Gandalf the Grey wear a tall hat?

Typically, no such set is appearing on Amazon.ca. I'm really getting sick of this crappy attitude Hollywood execs have for the rest of the world, as if our money (read: NOT AMERICAN) isn't good enough to be in on these deals, but it sure counts for everything else.

In the interests of being a forum administrator and setting a good example blah blah blah, I won't print here what I ACTUALLY think about all this exclusivity bullcrap. :

That's what "Limited" means, apparently...limited to the US.

Jibing aside (which I would not consider doing to a forum administrator who hides his feelings so well ), it is utterly baffling why they do this. In terms of DVD and BD regions codes, the US and Canada are one country. In terms of the exchange rate, it's pretty much equal right now. There's no earthly reason why this should be available in Canada. Maybe they figure you'll just order from Amazon US (and pay through the nose for shipping, I suppose) or maybe there will be a release on Amazon.ca, and they just don't have it up yet.