Simon Crust
Editorial Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- 3,013
- Points
- 2,581
Thanks for the review.
While I'm sure that the picture and sound are exemplary, the fact is that the extras are missing. It isn't as though they couldn't be included and there was nothing preventing the pre-existing extras being included. They were omitted to give reason for potentially having to yet again buy these titles towards the end of next year when there will be a 20th anniversary package released that will include the extras.
Yeah, give it 9, but I'd suggest giving it 10 doesn't account for the absence of the extras, extras that are in existence and could have been included within this release. I'm assuming the review relates to this particular release and the associated package and not simply the film? How will the 20th anniversary release be rated relative to this if it does include the extras? Why has this release been awarded a 10? Even the packaging you get is questionable. The info on the rear (pasted onto the box) is already strarting to peel away from the box on the copy I received.
Looks as though I'll have to retain the Blu-ray definitive boxset within my collection if I want to access the extras without having to buy the same titles yet again. Why was there a 4K UHD release this year when the anniversary isn't until next year?
Would be an incredibly long review page if all 3 films were reviewed together...Not sure as to why you couldn't review all three titles as a bundle given the fact you aren't ever going to get the option of buying them as individual 4K films?
Never seen any reviews on the forum of that length, so I’m guessing the forum prob can’t do it.and this prevents it being done in that maner why exactly?
Who's not watching these titles as a trilogy?
I think I'll just watch the middle one.
We’re always going to have that problem on the forums.Problem is that the same responses are required for multiple threads. Much of what has been discussed here is also relevant to both the other films.
am I the only who hates the LOTR and Hobbit films ??
Yes
I'm not overly fond of the Hobbit trilogy though. Why the need for three films?
So the equally interesting - what films do you like then?I think it’s me Dante i don’t like the following either
rambo’s
rocky’s
matrix‘s
godfather’s
grabs my coat and runs for cover
So the equally interesting - what films do you like then?
Not to start a slanging match am I the only who hates the LOTR and Hobbit films ??
Errm wow lolI think it’s me Dante i don’t like the following either
rambo’s
rocky’s
matrix‘s
godfather’s
I'm not one of them but after season 8, there are a lot of people who would agree with you on this one at least...
i also don‘t like Game of thrones either
I might hate them. I've got to watch them first though! I've bought these damn films 3 times and never watched a minute of them. So I'm going to have to consider buying these again?! Well I guess so. If I'm going to watch them for the first time, it may as well be the best looking and sounding ones.Not to start a slanging match am I the only who hates the LOTR and Hobbit films ??
Yes
I'm not overly fond of the Hobbit trilogy though. Why the need for three films?
Just had a look at Audible - The Hobbit is 11 Hrs (Read by Andy Serkis)I didn't love LOTR as much as many.
It was an outstanding achievement though and is superbly well done. Fantasy just isn't my genre although I will pick these up at some point.
The Hobbit, no, saw it once, that was enough. I'm totally with your comment about 3 films, they just stretched it out for a money grab. A duology would have been fine but overall they were missing something that LOTR had.
Yep, Simon, my feelings entirely.on the back of this film, Jackson would go on to indulge his talent on a slightly bloated but nevertheless epic King Kong reinterpretation, and then an even more bloated and unnecessary Hobbit, where all the good will that The Lord of the Rings built up was squashed.
Probably.Not to start a slanging match am I the only who hates the LOTR and Hobbit films ??
Problem is nowadays lots of people equate ‘longer = better’. Forget about good editing or a well paced film, they just want ‘quantity over quality’Just had a look at Audible - The Hobbit is 11 Hrs (Read by Andy Serkis)
Just Fellowship of the Ring is a hair under 20 Hours
Yet the 3 LOTR Movies to me felt complete (And I've been a LOTR Fanboy since my youth - even read the Silmarillion!)
Yep, I was so disappointed with The Hobbit Movies; they could have been so good - we need a "Contracted Edition" (Where they cut out Legolas & all that other Bloat)!
I love them.Not to start a slanging match am I the only who hates the LOTR and Hobbit films ??
I love them.
I despise Barry Pothead though and that nonsense. Not to mention a certain franchise that has gone quiet of late (and about time).