LotR extended DVD reviews

[Tsyr]

Yeah, I would much rather have great quality on two discs than mediocre quality on one disc.

 

[Ranger REG]

I agree that does suck, unless you're lucky enough to have a DvD changer but even with that it's still a draw back.

How so? I got an Apex 3-disc DVD changer. I'm a cheap SOB.

 

[Kibo]

Now, do I want the version with bookends or not?

Heh. If you can come up with a reason to goto Canada, buy the bookend version there and it won't cost you any more. It also has a national geographic disc too i think.

 

[Welverin]

Yeah, I would much rather have great quality on two discs than mediocre quality on one disc.

I thought of that and like the idea of the higher quality, but there are four separate commentary tracks. What I would rather have seen is disc one just be the extended version of the movie with the main audio track and good quality picture and sound and the second disc have the commentary tracks with lower quality picture and sound (since it doesn't matter for them).

Maybe fitting the whole movie on one disc with high quality picture and sound wasn't possible under any circumstances, but with as many audio tracks as were included I find it somewhat unlikely.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Commentary tracks typically don't take up all that much space (unless they felt some obscure need to put them in 5.1 dolby or something). I imagine the size of the video was really the factor here. But that's really just a educated guess.

 

[Welverin]

Commentary tracks typically don't take up all that much space (unless they felt some obscure need to put them in 5.1 dolby or something). I imagine the size of the video was really the factor here. But that's really just a educated guess.

I wasn't sure how much space they take up compared to the video, but I know in general sound files can be large.

The theatrical version is one disc, though there is nothing else on it, so maybe they didn't have a choice but to spilt up the longer version.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I wasn't sure how much space they take up compared to the video, but I know in general sound files can be large.

The theatrical version is one disc, though there is nothing else on it, so maybe they didn't have a choice but to spilt up the longer version.

They can be pretty big, but not nearly as large as video. And again, the high definition audio (of whatever format) takes up a LOT more space than a standard stereo track (which is what I'm assuming they use for the commentaries. Do we really need to listen to PJ talk to us in Dolby 5.1 ultra-mondo-uber earth-shaking sound? Probably not.)

 

[Welverin]

Do we really need to listen to PJ talk to us in Dolby 5.1 ultra-mondo-uber earth-shaking sound? Probably not.)

Come on! You need to use the expensive homw theater setup for something!

 

[KnowTheToe]

I also waited for the extended version. I am getting really anxious for it to come out. The additions seem just what the movie needed to flesh it out.

I refused to buy 2 copies of the same movie. I am glad they offer the two copies though. I usually don't want all the added crap in a DVD. Deleted scenes are still worthless deleted scenes. Is it really worth an extra $10 to see 3 - 6 20 second clips? How they made the movie, who cares? I don't. Keep this crap off of the base DVD and have a more expensive copy with the extras. I'm CamelToe, and I am a tired American. Thank you for your time.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'd expect that the audio bitrate is somewhere from 5-10 times smaller than the video bitrate.

The added audio is insignificant in comparison to keeping the video bitrate up. I don't know enough about high end DVD production and audio encoding to give really accurate numbers, but the video is the hog, and by a long shot.

Count me in amongst those that are happy to change disks if it means really good picture, even if the really good picture will only be really noticeable on high-quality, large TV's.