The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching LOTR on dvd today being nearly 3 hours and just though how brilliant it was. The special affects are something else and even though there are differences it is true to the book as much as possible. They cut out a lot of the first bit after the party ie Tom and the barrow wight. It was interesting to see the Balrog as there is know discription in the book. I though Liv was very good in her brief role as Arwin though if i remember Glofindel was the elf who met Frodo just before Rivendel. Lucky EW againd LTs chest hmmm worth a morgal knife for?
Page:
I was watching LOTR on dvd today being nearly 3 hours and just though how brilliant it was. The special affects are something else and even though there are differences it is true to the book as much as possible. They cut out a lot of the first bit after the party ie Tom and the barrow wight. It was interesting to see the Balrog as there is know discription in the book. I though Liv was very good in her brief role as Arwin though if i remember Glofindel was the elf who met Frodo just before Rivendel. Lucky EW againd LTs chest hmmm worth a morgal knife for?
Effects.
Barrow-wights.
Glorfindel.
Morgul.
Tut tut.
Barrow-wights.
Glorfindel.
Morgul.
Tut tut.
And he said know instead of no. But I can't really talk when it comes to spelling and grammer etc. I got it to but only on VHS, I'm not buying DVD until the 'special' version is released.
Let my 10 year old sister watch it, it scared her and gave her nightmares, but meh the advert said not suitable for under 8's so I thought 10 year olds would be fine.
Let my 10 year old sister watch it, it scared her and gave her nightmares, but meh the advert said not suitable for under 8's so I thought 10 year olds would be fine.
I love the film and that, but why the hell did they make it anamorphic widescreen? The size of the picture on my screen is tiny. It really wasted the moment for me.
cookie monster wrote:
> I love the film and that, but why the hell did they make it anamorphic
> widescreen? The size of the picture on my screen is tiny. It really
> wasted the moment for me.
Would you rather they released a fullscreen version so that almost half the picture is off the sides of the screen? To me, films just don't seem like films unless they're in widescreen - otherwise they just look like they're on TV.
Personally, I prefer films to be in good old 16:9. Otherwise you still get borders at the top, even on a WS telly.
> I love the film and that, but why the hell did they make it anamorphic
> widescreen? The size of the picture on my screen is tiny. It really
> wasted the moment for me.
Would you rather they released a fullscreen version so that almost half the picture is off the sides of the screen? To me, films just don't seem like films unless they're in widescreen - otherwise they just look like they're on TV.
Personally, I prefer films to be in good old 16:9. Otherwise you still get borders at the top, even on a WS telly.
I have full screen VHS version and I'm happy with it. So what is im missing a couple of orcs and trees off my screen, as long as I can see the damn ring...i'm happy.
SmokedKipper wrote:
> Would you rather they released a fullscreen version so that almost
> half the picture is off the sides of the screen?
Yes i would. The picture is little more than 15cms tall. It sucks.
> Would you rather they released a fullscreen version so that almost
> half the picture is off the sides of the screen?
Yes i would. The picture is little more than 15cms tall. It sucks.
cookie monster wrote:
> SmokedKipper wrote:
> Would you rather they released a fullscreen version so that almost
> half the picture is off the sides of the screen?
>
> Yes i would. The picture is little more than 15cms tall. It sucks.
Anamorphic means that it is designed to change shape to match the tv without loss of picture or clarity. It should not make a difference to the size of the picture. Widescreen films can be fiddled with on a half decent dvd player to fit the TV.
Videos can be more of a problem, but why buy videos at all these days? They can only manage surround and deteriorate with time, starting off with a worse picture than DVD and getting worse as they get older. It's false economy to get a video when you have a DVD player, as the DVD will last longer with no loss of sound or picture.
I got the LOTR DVD the other day, it was offered to me for a price that matched the video price, but it's worth getting on top of the 4 disc version as they are technically different productions. The film has been totally re-edited, with different shots and timing used for the special edition, including new music.
> SmokedKipper wrote:
> Would you rather they released a fullscreen version so that almost
> half the picture is off the sides of the screen?
>
> Yes i would. The picture is little more than 15cms tall. It sucks.
Anamorphic means that it is designed to change shape to match the tv without loss of picture or clarity. It should not make a difference to the size of the picture. Widescreen films can be fiddled with on a half decent dvd player to fit the TV.
Videos can be more of a problem, but why buy videos at all these days? They can only manage surround and deteriorate with time, starting off with a worse picture than DVD and getting worse as they get older. It's false economy to get a video when you have a DVD player, as the DVD will last longer with no loss of sound or picture.
I got the LOTR DVD the other day, it was offered to me for a price that matched the video price, but it's worth getting on top of the 4 disc version as they are technically different productions. The film has been totally re-edited, with different shots and timing used for the special edition, including new music.
And he said "Arwin."
Arwen. Shame on you.
Arwen. Shame on you.
> Anamorphic means that it is designed to change shape to match the tv
> without loss of picture or clarity. It should not make a difference
> to the size of the picture. Widescreen films can be fiddled with on a
> half decent dvd player to fit the TV.
Oh i see. But i set the player to "Pan scan", the instruction book says that this should make the picture fill the tv screen, whilst cutting off a little of the sides. But when i played the dvd it was still the same.
Im stumped.
> without loss of picture or clarity. It should not make a difference
> to the size of the picture. Widescreen films can be fiddled with on a
> half decent dvd player to fit the TV.
Oh i see. But i set the player to "Pan scan", the instruction book says that this should make the picture fill the tv screen, whilst cutting off a little of the sides. But when i played the dvd it was still the same.
Im stumped.
Page: