Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Lord of the Rings on Blu-Ray

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Lord of the Rings > Lord of the Rings on Blu-Ray   << [1] [2]
How about yet more exciting CGI :mrgreen: ?

[b:20zdkacv]GB[/b:20zdkacv]
[quote="pettytyrant101":2phohkzv]I'm hoping the longer version of that scene might be in the blue-ray versions (it always bugged me they had shot it but not put it in the EE dvd's).[/quote:2phohkzv]

That reminds me; while I'm not thrilled by the prospect of even longer films, I would love for them to include some deleted scenes. I was disappointed that they hadn't for the EEs, though of course those DVDs are already amazing. :ugeek:
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":23hzedv4]Actually, I thought the problem was that there was MORE character development than there was in the books <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> (following logically on many of the "purist" arguments, particularly in regard to Aragorn and Faramir).[/quote:23hzedv4]

In some cases the complaint is that they added new elements to the characters that distort the originals, though I wouldn't call it too much character development. Misplaced character development, maybe. In other cases, such as Denethor, the complaint is that they flattened the character too much. In others the complaint isn't in the amount of 'development' at all, but merely the type. It really depends on the character in question. It's a topic for another thread though, I think. :lol:

[quote:23hzedv4]I totally disagree that the films were unbalanced in favour of excessive CGI. The CGI and special effects were brilliant and effective but clearly in service to the story and characters rather than the reverse.[/quote:23hzedv4]

I agree with GB on this one. :o (I know, I know; please don't end, universe.) Compared to a lot of directors (like George Lucas who included bluescreen in just about every shot of the SW prequels, or James Cameron who made most of Avatar entirely computer-generated) PJ used a lot of real sets and models. Of course, saying 'it could have been worse' doesn't change what actually was done, but I think that PJ was able to balance real, physical environments with CGI for some fantastic elements. In a lot of cases where he could have used CGI, he used models, miniatures, or forced perspective tricks (case in point for all three: Minas Tirith). I think the CGI was an effective tool for the fantastic elements, and I don't think it impeded on the story (though some [i:23hzedv4]other[/i:23hzedv4] things did :P ).
I agree this is not the thread to discuss CGI in- so I'm off to make a new thread, see you there if you're feeling argumentative <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> .
Good news EE coming out soon, also mentions turning lotr into 3D. That should get some interesting views on hereSmile Smilie http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/01 ... ing-soon/#
Definitely interesting ... thanks for the article, chris. I was thinking about the Ultimate Editions earlier today, actually, after someone asked me about them on another forum, and it's good to hear that they're still being discussed. I'm still personally happy with me EE DVDs - and I don't have a Blu-ray player - so I will probably wait for the Ultimates for the time being, but that's still encouraging news. I have mixed feelings about 3D, but I don't have a 3DTV anyway. I will be interested to see what people have to say about the quality of the transfers. I recall a number of reviewers saying that the image quality of the original Blu-ray release was inconsistent at best, so I would hope that this time they do a better job. Either way, it's nice to see them releasing the fan-favourite version, even if this means that it will be another* triple-dip release. :lol: * In addition to the Theatrical and Extended DVDs, there was a less-well-known Limited Edition box set that was released in 2007 or thereabouts.
[* In addition to the Theatrical and Extended DVDs, there was a less-well-known Limited Edition box set that was released in 2007 or thereabouts.
got it <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
I've always wanted to at least take a look at that one. :lol: Are the documentaries for the L.E. worth the extra purchase? They sound neat from what I've read but I'm curious as to what someone who owns them thinks. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
To say you can buy them now for under $10 they are worth a look. Think they are put together by a couple of the crew Eldo, the extras that is. Always find them interesting, probably watch the extras more then the films these days.
I only have the EE dvds. Are the extras and documentraies different on the blueray? And more importantly is there any difference in the films?
If they do actually produce a retconned 3D version, I hope (expect) that it will be better than the other after-the-fact 3D productions. [b:ypoafrhz]GB[/b:ypoafrhz]
[quote="pettytyrant101":zvg8xiop]I only have the EE dvds. Are the extras and documentraies different on the blueray? And more importantly is there any difference in the films?[/quote:zvg8xiop] As far as I can tell the EE Blu-ray will be the same films and bonus material as the EE DVD, just in the new format. That's how it worked for the theatrical Blu-ray release, although in that case the bonus material was not in the Blu-ray format, only the actual films were. I don't know if that will also be the case with the EEs. The Ultimate Editions, if this is anything like the ideas PJ has mentioned in years past, would include new and/or expanded bonus features, though I'm not sure if the main body of the films would be changed or not.
[quote="Eldorion":13y35scn][quote="pettytyrant101":13y35scn]I only have the EE dvds. Are the extras and documentraies different on the blueray? And more importantly is there any difference in the films?[/quote:13y35scn] As far as I can tell the EE Blu-ray will be the same films and bonus material as the EE DVD, just in the new format. That's how it worked for the theatrical Blu-ray release, although in that case the bonus material was not in the Blu-ray format, only the actual films were. I don't know if that will also be the case with the EEs. The Ultimate Editions, if this is anything like the ideas PJ has mentioned in years past, would include new and/or expanded bonus features,[b:13y35scn] though I'm not sure if the main body of the films would be changed or not.[/b:13y35scn][/quote:13y35scn] Are you [i:13y35scn]trying[/i:13y35scn] to give Petty a Heart attack? :lol: [b:13y35scn]GB[/b:13y35scn]
Didnt get any extras with my blu-ray, sound was great picture quality was good. could even see the pattern woven into their Elven cloaks, never noticed it before. Back to sound my BD was only 5.1 while the box set i think was 6.1 as the normal DVD. I'v got 7.1 so it does make a bit of a difference. Think the only movie i have seen that is 7.1 is Saw IV.
Sounds great, Chris <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Too bad I can't afford a BR player :x
So lets me get this straight. They sold us the theatrical versions first, then the EE's and this special version mentioned above, then they sold us the theatrical versions and the EE's again but on Blueray? And the only difference between the EE dvd's and the EE blue ray is the HD? I think in the future I will just invite PJ round to rob my house while I'm out, same difference. What a greedy b****rd! <img src='/images/smileys/vevil.gif' border='0' alt='Very Evil Smilie' /> Just for that I think I'll wait for a torrent and dl the damn things! (apart from anything else means I don't also have to buy a blueray player to watch the damn things).
I highly doubt that PJ is in charge of all the home video releases, I think that one is on the studios. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> I agree that it's a bit ridiculous, but frankly the nerdrage over it is even more ridiculous. No one is forcing you to buy six versions of LOTR on home video. No one is tricking you into buying six different versions, because they've been extremely upfront over what is on each version. For example, they were honest about the limitations of the initial Blu-ray release even though that probably just made people like you even more outraged. Honestly, saying "you release lots of different versions of your films so I'll just steal them" is childish and petulant. I know there is a moral argument for piracy saying that people should be able to share their own property (though I'm not sure if I agree with it), but that argument isn't based on being upset over the manner of a movie's release. <Edit for spelling since I typed this on my phone.>
Shiver me timbers! Let's make this scurvy dog walk the plank, aye, me hearty? Our booty be ours, nomatter what this scallywag be sayin'! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> Hoho, aren't I a funny one. On a more serious note regarding piracy: I'm a bit relaxed about it, so I'm not one to judge I think. I do, however, have a CD collection of considerable size and not few DvDs either, which is rather unusual for people my age these days. I only buy the music and films by my favourite musicians/directors/actors though, mostly out of a sense of respect I think. I always feel bad if I download/steal the work of the artists I like (I see the double moral in this though, I guess every film maker and musician should be shown the same respect for their work).
I admire your position Eldo-really- I just don't agree with it. They could have made the EE dvd and blue ray and the theatrical versions available at the same time and allowed the consumer to choose which they wanted. But they didn't. Instead they cynically released first one version and then another knowing the die hard fan would buy what they could when they could and pay several times for what is essentially the same films. I see no reason why I should have to pay for the same films twice let alone three or four times. Its not like I haven't paid for these three films already, I have, I just don't see why I should be used as a cash machine for a film company. If they are going to treat people badly they deserve no less in return. Ringdrotten I largely agree, artsts have to be paid but there is a difference between an artist being paid and a company ripping the piss. When it comes to music I tend to illegally dl only music I already had. Otherwise you find that you buy an album first on vynyl (I'm old!) then it was cd, then mp3. Why should I have to pay for the same thing over and over (and if anyone thinks the artists make money out of these they are nieve, the companies do).
[quote="pettytyrant101":g8y0ions]I admire your position Eldo-really- I just don't agree with it. They could have made the EE dvd and blue ray and the theatrical versions available at the same time and allowed the consumer to choose which they wanted. But they didn't. Instead they cynically released first one version and then another knowing the die hard fan would buy what they could when they could and pay several times for what is essentially the same films. [/quote:g8y0ions] Have to agree with Petty on this one (I did, however, buy all the theatrical and EE releases of LotR, simply because I'm one of those stupid die hards <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> ) [quote="pettytyrant101":g8y0ions]Ringdrotten I largely agree, artsts have to be paid but there is a difference between an artist being paid and a company ripping the piss. When it comes to music I tend to illegally dl only music I already had. Otherwise you find that you buy an album first on vynyl (I'm old!) then it was cd, then mp3. Why should I have to pay for the same thing over and over (and if anyone thinks the artists make money out of these they are nieve, the companies do).[/quote:g8y0ions] Well, even if the cash doesn't go to the ones I'd like it to, it still lightens my conscience <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
I'll just wait until I can afford a Hi Def Plasma Screen with 3D capability, a Blu Ray DVD player with all the bells and whistles and updates, then the full box set of The Hobbit movies and LotR movies EEs with even MORE added scenes and in 3D. :mrgreen: [b:3um82wek]GB[/b:3um82wek]
[quote="pettytyrant101":ia24v96e]Instead they cynically released first one version and then another knowing the die hard fan would buy what they could when they could and pay several times for what is essentially the same films.[/quote:ia24v96e] If some fans are so obsessive that they feel the need to buy every DVD and Blu-ray release instead of waiting for the one they want, that's their problem. You can't blame the studious for staggering releases so that each one gets attention, and again, they have been extremely honest about the limitations in the releases. You still have choice, even if you also need patience, and complaining about being "treated badly" is so hyperbolic that I'm beginning to wonder if you're not just being facetious. [quote:ia24v96e]I see no reason why I should have to pay for the same films twice let alone three or four times.[/quote:ia24v96e] Get a grip. No one is making you buy the movies at all, much less buy each version to be released. You don't "have" to pay for anything except the version you want. If you want to buy each release of the films - and each release is fairly different - then you'll have to pay for each of them. If you only want one (whether it be the EEs or the Theatricals that you prefer), you need only pay once. It really is as simple as that, unless you lack the self-control to stop yourself from buying movies you don't want. :roll:
Right on target Eldo. I DID buy the original theatrical releases. But when I bought the EEs I gave away the theatrical releases as Christmas presents. Hence-forth, I shall wait the market out until I get the version I want. [b:2yoa9uss]GB[/b:2yoa9uss]
"You don't "have" to pay for anything except the version you want."- Eldo This is true Eldo but it still denys the motivation for the manner of the releases. Which is to fleece fans. If you find that cynical it is but its cynical on the companies side too. If its any consolation I have a cupboard full of films on video and dvd (many of them the same bloody films) I've been here before rebuying my film collection for a new format. Now I've got a shiny HD tv (that took an age to afford) and would like to see my films in HD but that means buying them all again which in the current climate I simply cannot do. Bottom line is no one is going to lose any money if I download the blue ray versions rather than buy them because I cannot afford to buy them and a blueray player in the first place even if I want to. Given a choice, and more money, I would much rather a nice shelf with all my films in their original boxes in a neat row- I'm quite old fashioned that way. But in leiu of that happening I have no moral qualms about DL a film I already payed for on dvd- a good example is Watchmen which I recently DL because my original DVD got damaged when I lent it to a neighbour. Besides we are still waiting on the EE blueray release- how many years is that now since the release of the theatrical versions? Do you think the company responsible is not doing this delibretly to maximize sales of the other versions prior to making even more money from these ones? Of course they are. If I had choosen to wait for the blueray EE I would still be waiting, the film company know people are unlikely to wait so long for a film they want, their actions are no less immoral. Its a big silly game in which they try to maximise the amount they can get out of fans and fans try not to get fleeced in the process. In my view the manner in which the releases have been handled is more likely to encourage piracy than deter it.
[quote="pettytyrant101":d4y6ld15]This is true Eldo but it still denys the motivation for the manner of the releases. Which is to fleece fans. If you find that cynical it is but its cynical on the companies side too.[/quote:d4y6ld15] Of course it's about money, making money is the studio's goal. And you may recall that I agreed that the manner of the release is a bit ridiculous, I just think that the fan reaction is even more ridiculous. Besides, I still think saying that it is fleecing fans is exaggeration. If they were being dishonest or misleading about the contents of each release I would agree with you, but they're not. At worst you'll just have to wait a bit to get the EEs. [quote:d4y6ld15]Besides we are still waiting on the EE blueray release- how many years is that now since the release of the theatrical versions? Do you think the company responsible is not doing this delibretly to maximize sales of the other versions prior to making even more money from these ones? Of course they are.[/quote:d4y6ld15] It's been less than a year since the TE came out on Blu-ray, but yes, of course it's about money. I'm sure that releasing the EEs this year instead of closer to when The Hobbit comes out is also about money, because the TE Blu-ray release has sold rather poorly, probably because of fans like you and me who were disappointed with its contents. However, I don't see how you can get outraged over a for-profit corporation trying to make money when they have been honest and the only thing you must "suffer" is a wait. There's not even the excuse of only having a crappy release of LOTR out, because the DVDs already have great picture and sound quality. [quote:d4y6ld15]If I had choosen to wait for the blueray EE I would still be waiting, the film company know people are unlikely to wait so long for a film they want, their actions are no less immoral.[/quote:d4y6ld15] Trying to make money is not immoral. Also, any person who lacks the self-control to stop themselves from buying a movie they don't want has some pretty major issues they need to work out. If this really is the case for a large number of people, it says a lot more about the fans than about the studio.
"Trying to make money is not immoral."- Eldo That's very American of you Eldo. But we don't all worship at the altar of capitalism. There is a difference between an honest living and greed. I think the film companies favour greed.
:roll: I don't have to "worship at the altar of the capitalism" to point out that it's an overreaction to get upset over a company trying to make money in such a harmless - if mildly annoying - way.
Petty if it were not for that capitalism then you would not have the films to discuss buying or not buying. There has to be a desire on the part of the company to plunk down 500 million to make 2 movies, and that desire comes from the ideal that they can recoup that money and more in the long run. This does not always work out, but if not for that reason you would not have the movies to begin with, because in a society that does not "worship at the alter" of capitalism these movies would never have existed in the first place. Greed now results in the ability to see a few flops through, but if you put everything you have on the line as a company like the ones that financed the so called unfilmable LOTR movies, then you deserve to recoup what you can in my book. With great risk should come great reward or failure.
"if it were not for that capitalism then you would not have the films"- TragicKingdom On balance I find more things to annoy me in the films than I do to enjoy. So for me that's not such a bad thing. By far the best thing for me to have come out of those films is meeting the good people of this forum. I never said companies should not make a profit. The LotR films in dvd, EE, blue-ray sales makes a profit, a good one, even if they released the different versions at once and let the consumer choose, they would have made a healthy profit. To maximise those profits by cynically staggering the releases in order to sell, essentially, the same product multiple times crosses into greed however. A sin if I am not mistaken and therefore immoral. And it was the morality of their actions I was calling into question not the width of their profit margin.
What is wrong with greed if doesn't actually hurt anyone? Staggering DVD releases is just about the most benign manifestation of greed that I can think of. I fully agree that greed which leads people to be harmful or dishonest or anything like that is wrong, but that's the not the case here.
"What is wrong with greed"-Eldo Its like I am reading from the big bumper book of capitialism that American parents read to their children in the hope they will grow up to be economists. The answer to your question Eldo is all around us.
Did you even read the rest of my post? Snipping out a single sentence fragment and removing the qualifications I had is just dishonest. Let's look at this seriously. Whenever someone goes around declaring things bad, they usually do so for a reason, right? And that reason normally has something to do with the thing in question being harmful or detrimental. In the case of greed, it could lead to a disregard for other people's safety or livelihood, or it could make someone act dishonestly, or any number of things. But if all that greed does is make someone decide to [i:2owtj8w2]take their time releasing different versions of a movie on DVD[/i:2owtj8w2], what harm was done? The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm not a fan of blanket declarations of right and wrong except in a few extreme cases. I prefer to judge specific actions rather than base motivations, because more elemental things can motivate a broad range of actions. There are plenty of actions motivated by greed that are immoral, but greed can also motivate benign actions. If you disagree and think that greed is always wrong, feel free to convince me, but you're going to have to do more than whine about Americans and capitalism.
You know, sometimes I suspect Mr Tyrant is only on this forum to cause division, tell lies and stir things up. Disgraceful behavior! :x Btw Eldo, I agree with you that not everything is black and white. Also, I find it quite oppressive that some people here subscribe to the simplistic idea that [i:feb0hrhy]they[/i:feb0hrhy] are always "right", and that [i:feb0hrhy]everyone else [/i:feb0hrhy]is always "wrong." :ugeek:
I will first admit Eldo to an element of mischieve making here, or at the least of devils advocacy- I reject dishonest though. But the argument I presented is in fact simpler than what you outline. I said the company were being greedy and that was immoral. You said there was nothing immoral about making money (caveats accepted). I repeated that I was not objecting to them making a profit, only from the extra greed which led them to stagger the releases to maximise what they could get out of consumers. You replied that unless greed was harmful or duplicitous it was not a problem (or thats how I take your meaning-please correct me if I am wrong). My contention is a simple equation. Greed (big or small) is a sin. Sins are immoral. Whether its the greed that leads to a war, death and poverty or the sort of greed that is (relatively) harmless like staggering sales of a product in a cynical fashion wass not my point. If there is a God I reckon getting to the Pearly Gates and arguing that yes you were sinful but only in small ways might not wash! Sin is sin. Its either immoral to be greedy or not. My contention was that it is, therefore the companies actions are immoral, even if it is only in a small way. I only brought America and capitalism into as its always amused me that a country so prominate in its Christianity should have an economic model that encourages the sin of greed (if it didn't you would have a NHS with free care for all at the point of need- greed is why you don't). I like irony. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> "sometimes I suspect Mr Tyrant is only on this forum to cause division, tell lies and stir things up"-Odo 'Tell lies' -thats uncalled for Odo and if I may so beneath you. Definetly not respectable behaviour. <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' /> What happened to the old Odo who had beliefs you could bend iron round and didn't use his wit to make unpleasant allegations? Is this what dieting does to people?!!
[quote="pettytyrant101":3bpmg2ir]My contention is a simple equation. Greed (big or small) is a sin. Sins are immoral. Whether its the greed that leads to a war, death and poverty or the sort of greed that is (relatively) harmless like staggering sales of a product in a cynical fashion wass not my point. If there is a God I reckon getting to the Pearly Gates and arguing that yes you were sinful but only in small ways might not wash! Sin is sin. Its either immoral to be greedy or not. My contention was that it is, therefore the companies actions are immoral, even if it is only in a small way.[/quote:3bpmg2ir] I was under the impression that you're non-religious. Are you resting your argument on scriptural denunciations of sin, or are you using the word sin in your own secular sense? Either way, I tend to prefer a more nuanced look at things. An [i:3bpmg2ir]action[/i:3bpmg2ir] can be moral, immoral, or amoral, but but "being greedy" is so broad and covers so many different actions that I hesitate to apply [i:3bpmg2ir]any[/i:3bpmg2ir] uniform label to it.
"I was under the impression that you're non-religious." -Eldo Indeed, I had thought you might guess there was an element of devils advocate to me taking a religous stand point, but I wanted to follow the logic of the argument through as you raised an interesting point. A point you hit on the head when you ask above; "Are you resting your argument on scriptural denunciations of sin, or are you using the word sin in your own secular sense?" A very good question. When I first used the word immoral to describe the companies actions I didn't give it much thought unitl you questioned it. As I am not religious I could not have meant it in such a fashion. I only argued on the religous theme, greed=sin=immorarlity because sin being an immoral thing is a classic definition, and to see where it went. (As you pointed out it leads, as most religous themes seem to into a black/white scenario). But despite not being religous I don't dismiss everything thats under the umbrella religion. I think the achievement of a moral code should not be taken lightly. Its pretty impressive for an animal to have come up with. As ideals go the basic religous ones aren't half bad, without them humans might never have learned how to live together in such large comunities. I don't believe a God gave moral laws to mankind therefore I believe those ideas were man-made, our species came up with them, and they are worth giving thought to. Greed is more often bad that good in our society, there's some truth in the old sins. And at the end of the day I don't like greed. I hate it more when it leads to real pain and suffering but I still dislike it even when its small scale, like a film compnay. In otherwords I stick to my feeling that staggering the releases to maximise their money rather than giving the consumer choice is greedy, and a bad thing. Which after all, boiled down, is all my contention was- still a good debate is very healthy, every so often. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Greed? Dieting? Unfounded assertions to lies that weren't defined and definitely not made in the first place? Me, who never makes up things or causes trouble for fun, accused of salacious bear baiting! --- Maybe my diet has affected me --- and maybe if I was a little more greedy and a little less thin through dieting, I might have been a tiny bit less mischievous! Sin could mean secular sin --- I mean, even the Godless have a sense of moral correctness, don't they, Eldo!?!
[quote= Sin could mean secular sin --- I mean, even the Godless have a sense of moral correctness, don't they, Eldo!?!
odo, I do not think that you can say moral correctness as that states a sense of right vs wrong, meaning that something is either correct or not. And in secular society there is no definitive line for correctness, it is something that each person deems correct or not. What Petty deems correct and what lets say chalie manson deem correct are probably far apart but both would fall under the same umbrella statement, as they do not have a standard outside of the law (which is hardly ever about morals) to base their moral correctness on. Plus to lump all religions into one statement is also incorrect Petty, as each religion has different moral standards that they are held to, what is right for a muslim worshipping islam is not close to being morally correct for a christian, or a hindu. Religion is a very large and broad word that is used incorrectly alot of the time when making statements about faith.
"in secular society there is no definitive line for correctness, it is something that each person deems correct or not."- TragicKingdom I don't entirely agree. I would consider myself secular but I still have moral ideals which guide my actions. That some of those ideals were first presented in the context of religion is not relevant if you do not believe in a god. They can still be good ideas and accepted as such. They are human achievements. They belong to the people, religous or otherwise. Secularism does offer more variety, no moral law is prescribed from On High, you choose your own according to your own conscience (but in truth is this not what the majority have always done?). And you are right that religions have a lot of major differences, I didn't think it necessary for the post above to list all the similar good ones I could think of. But the fact most of the religions share many basic moral laws demonstrates I believe that they were born out of the necessity for humans to adapt to living in larger settlemens were laws on not killing, stealing, coveting, and sanitation were needed, rather than to orders from God. "they do not have a standard outside of the law (which is hardly ever about morals) to base their moral correctness on."- Ringdrotten Respect for others. Respect for the planet as a system which supports us. The desire to help those less fortunate than onself. These are humanitarian principles. A standard to base ones actions upon. The human conscience does not evaporate in the abscence of faith, much as religions might like people to believe it does. Perhaps this sort of discussion would be better moving onto the BBST if it is to be continued?
[quote="TragicKingdom":20zh4q78]And in secular society there is no definitive line for correctness, it is something that each person deems correct or not.[/quote:20zh4q78] That's little different from how it is with religious folk. Religious texts tend to be subject to interpretation, and even within a single religion there are so many denominations, factions, and differing opinions that people still have to make moral judgments for themselves (or at the very least, religious leaders make those choices for their followers). For example, Christians in America (an overwhelming majority of the country) are hardly in agreement on the major moral issues of the day. The fact of the matter is that everyone has to make choices when it comes to their moral code and that there are sources for moral codes other than religion. Humanism comes to mind. There are fewer differences between religious and non-religious people on this matter than is often argued.
[quote="pettytyrant101":36uu2bew]And at the end of the day I don't like greed. I hate it more when it leads to real pain and suffering but I still dislike it even when its small scale, like a film compnay. In otherwords I stick to my feeling that staggering the releases to maximise their money rather than giving the consumer choice is greedy, and a bad thing. Which after all, boiled down, is all my contention was- still a good debate is very healthy, every so often. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />[/quote:36uu2bew] I can certainly respect that, even if I think there has been an overreaction from some people (and you're hardly the worst when it comes to that). <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> I agree about debate - thanks for going back and forth with me. :mrgreen:
[quote="pettytyrant101":33vb4u8a] "they do not have a standard outside of the law (which is hardly ever about morals) to base their moral correctness on."-[b:33vb4u8a] Ringdrotten[/b:33vb4u8a][/quote:33vb4u8a] An odd and thought-provoking statement it is, but I don't believe I can take credit for everything being said around here <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> [quote="TragicKingdom":33vb4u8a] what is right for a muslim worshipping islam is not close to being morally correct for a christian, or a hindu. [/quote:33vb4u8a] I disagree (to a point). What differences do you think there are in morality between a Muslim and a Christian? There's a few think I'd like to say, but I'll await your answer to that question first :ugeek:
[quote="Eldorion":3d8ylpx5][quote="TragicKingdom":3d8ylpx5]That's little different from how it is with religious folk. [/quote:3d8ylpx5][/quote:3d8ylpx5] But of course! Religious Patriarchs (the winners) always made up rules judged against their own perspective and experience (measured through the lens of their lust for power - O.R.B*), just like Mr Tyrant suggested (I don't think he was lying this time); their God (or gods) then, when prayed to for advice, rubber stamped them, indeed, admitted that they had put them in Man's head in the first place, but secretly - as a mystery... :ugeek: . *Added thought by Odo Reuel Banks
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":vxqv2kj0]It's up to us to decide whether or not to be fleeced when it comes to deciding whether to wait for the Ultimate Director's Cut Boxed Collector's Version or just get the very first DVD to hit the market.[/quote:vxqv2kj0] Also, on that note, I have respect for the studio for letting people know in advance that the EE release won't be the last Blu-ray, so that people who'd prefer to wait for the 'Ultimate Edition' have the knowledge to avoid being fleeced. Really, the studio is going out of its way to empower consumers to exercise their choice for whichever version they want.
[quote="Eldorion":3u83ortn][quote="Gandalfs Beard":3u83ortn]It's up to us to decide whether or not to be fleeced when it comes to deciding whether to wait for the Ultimate Director's Cut Boxed Collector's Version or just get the very first DVD to hit the market.[/quote:3u83ortn] Also, on that note, I have respect for the studio for letting people know in advance that the EE release won't be the last Blu-ray, so that people who'd prefer to wait for the 'Ultimate Edition' have the knowledge to avoid being fleeced. Really, the studio is going out of its way to empower consumers to exercise their choice for whichever version they want.[/quote:3u83ortn] All well and true, but even if they didn't tell us, there are some Franchises you KNOW are bound to have the Ultimate Uber Super Duper Collector's Boxed Edition. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [b:3u83ortn]GB[/b:3u83ortn]
I TOTALLY agree with Petty about the EVILS of Capitalism, but I TOTALLY agree with Eldo that unless you plan on buying every DVD version of every film you can't blame the Corporations for attempting to "Fleece" the Public--that's what they do best <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . It's up to us to decide whether or not to be fleeced when it comes to deciding whether to wait for the Ultimate Director's Cut Boxed Collector's Version or just get the very first DVD to hit the market. [b:1ojrd9ia]GB[/b:1ojrd9ia]
True! :lol:
Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but how noticeable is the difference of quality between DVD and Blu-ray. Because I haven't noticed the difference between my normal tv and my new HD TV. Do you need a massive screen to see the difference? Or will it show on my 25inch telly!
Blu-ray is just the HD format, but it won't work unless you also have an HDTV. To have true high-definition you need both the source (your disc, in this case) and your TV to be equipped for HD. Trying to play a Blu-ray on a non-HD television set won't give you HD and neither will playing a DVD on a HDTV. We have a HDTV at my house, and while we don't have a Blu-ray player, there is a noticeable difference in picture clarity and detail between regular broadcast television and HD broadcast television. I assume there is a similar difference with DVDs and Blu-ray.
ray Disc Blu-ray (not Blue-ray) also known as Blu-ray Disc (BD), is the name of a new optical disc format jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA), a group of the world's leading consumer electronics, personal computer and media manufacturers (including Apple, Dell, Hitachi, HP, JVC, LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK and Thomson). The format was developed to enable recording, rewriting and playback of high-definition video (HD), as well as storing large amounts of data. The format offers more than five times the storage capacity of traditional DVDs and can hold up to 25GB on a single-layer disc and 50GB on a dual-layer disc. This extra capacity combined with the use of advanced video and audio codecs will offer consumers an unprecedented HD experience. While current optical disc technologies such as DVD, DVD±R, DVD±RW, and DVD-RAM rely on a red laser to read and write data, the new format uses a blue-violet laser instead, hence the name Blu-ray. Despite the different type of lasers used, Blu-ray products can easily be made backwards compatible with CDs and DVDs through the use of a BD/DVD/CD compatible optical pickup unit. The benefit of using a blue-violet laser (405nm) is that it has a shorter wavelength than a red laser (650nm), which makes it possible to focus the laser spot with even greater precision. This allows data to be packed more tightly and stored in less space, so it's possible to fit more data on the disc even though it's the same size as a CD/DVD. This together with the change of numerical aperture to 0.85 is what enables Blu-ray Discs to hold 25GB/50GB. Recent development by Pioneer has pushed the storage capacity to 500GB on a single disc by using 20 layers. Blu-ray is currently supported by about 200 of the world's leading consumer electronics, personal computer, recording media, video game and music companies. The format also has support from all Hollywood studios and countless smaller studios as a successor to today's DVD format. Many studios have also announced that they will begin releasing new feature films on Blu-ray Disc day-and-date with DVD, as well as a continuous slate of catalog titles every month. For more information about Blu-ray movies, check out our Blu-ray movies and Blu-ray reviews section which offers information about new and upcoming Blu-ray releases, as well as what movies are currently available in the Blu-ray format. For more information about Blu-ray, please see our Blu-ray FAQ.
  << [1] [2]