Amazon has
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Extended Edition & Theatrical Cut Set (4K Ultra HD + Digital) on sale for
$70.97.
Shipping is free.
Note: Shows "in stock soon" but you may place your order now and won't be charged until the item ships.
Walmart also has
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Extended Edition & Theatrical Cut Set (4K Ultra HD + Digital) on sale for
$70.97.
Shipping is free or select free store pickup where available.
Thanks to community member
chbrandt for finding this deal.
About this product:- "This critically acclaimed epic trilogy follows the quest undertaken by the hobbit, Frodo Baggins, and his fellowship of companions to save Middle-earth by destroying the One Ring and defeating the evil forces of the Dark Lord Sauron."
- This 9-Disc Set Includes:
- 4K Ultra HD Discs + Digital Copies for:
- The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
- Theatrical Cut (2 hrs 58 mins) & Extended Edition (3 hrs 32 mins)
- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
- Theatrical Cut (2 hrs 59 mins) & Extended Edition (3 hrs 55 mins)
- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
- Theatrical Cut (3 hrs 21 mins) & Extended Edition (4 hrs 23 mins)
Leave a Comment
Top Comments
102 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I thought she was in Wakanda...
Thanks for the info. I am getting this 4k version then!
Though I was hoping the studio would have 4.7k version instead
1st off let's clear one thing up, "Atmos" has nothing to do with 4K/8K that's all AQ.
What something was shot in isn't the main factor on the PQ you are watching, it's the transfer of it that counts the most.
It's not uncommon to have a "2K" transfer having a better PQ than a "4K" transfer.
Technically it may be true it's "physically impossible to see a difference" BUT what is perceived is a different story.
Just look at what you perceive, "4K" vs "HD" it's "no big deal"!
HDR CAN be a benefit but only if the transfer is good AND your equipment can take full advantage of it. Most displays can't take full advantage of HDR capabilities also.
There is a PQ difference between a 65" OLED vs TCL, people will debate how much and or the worth of that difference but there is one.
How your player processes the PQ to your display plays a big role here also.
This is done thru tone mapping and since there is no set standard on the best way to do this, everyone has their own process.
As fun as this conversation is it's all comes down to perception!
Just look at streaming, many people think it's "good enough" and/or is "good".
How often do you read someone saying" people still buy disc!"
Same happens with AQ many people see "Atmos" and think it's better.
They buy an OLED and use a "Atmos" soundbar or entry level speakers and that's great!
- Atmos has nothing to do with AQ. It's a surround format for positional audio. OK, we know what you meant, and I guess I could have been clearer.
- Atmos has everything to do with 4K in that they relied on each other to make it to market. And that might seem like a stretch but this is my whole point. UHD is a package deal with 3 different potential upgrades in one format. The resolution bump is a distant 3rd in terms of impact in the real world. But at least I can point to real tangible features that I am excited about with UHD. Atmos to me is the best thing to happen to home theater audio since the DVD format. I also thought HDR was stunning on my $900 65" TCL ... not exactly enthusiast equipment.
Even with this, UHD player and content sales are in the toilet. This should have been an enormous year! We couldn't go to theaters and UHD brings potentially better PQ into your home. UHD should be on fire right now and it's slowly dying. No way could another resolution bump succeed without sister technologies packaged with it.
I am not sure what you're driving at with "perception" - those of us buying UHDs are already chasing quality we can't always perceive, and we know it. And even then we know there's no benefit to 8K.
This might seem like I'm taking this too seriously, and I definitely am, but I'd hate for someone to hold off on buying the LOTR trilogy because they think bigger and better is coming. This is it! I have 100% confidence that this is the last time these movies will be put on physical disc because there are no meaningful improvements left to be made.
Ignoring, of course, the inevitably overpriced Supreme Nerd Set coming this year that packages the same movie discs with exclusive bonuses of Peter Jackson's dog's production diary videos.
- Atmos has nothing to do with AQ. It's a surround format for positional audio. OK, we know what you meant, and I guess I could have been clearer.
- Atmos has everything to do with 4K in that they relied on each other to make it to market. And that might seem like a stretch but this is my whole point. UHD is a package deal with 3 different potential upgrades in one format. The resolution bump is a distant 3rd in terms of impact in the real world. But at least I can point to real tangible features that I am excited about with UHD. Atmos to me is the best thing to happen to home theater audio since the DVD format. I also thought HDR was stunning on my $900 65" TCL ... not exactly enthusiast equipment.
Even with this, UHD player and content sales are in the toilet. This should have been an enormous year! We couldn't go to theaters and UHD brings potentially better PQ into your home. UHD should be on fire right now and it's slowly dying. No way could another resolution bump succeed without sister technologies packaged with it.
I am not sure what you're driving at with "perception" - those of us buying UHDs are already chasing quality we can't always perceive, and we know it. And even then we know there's no benefit to 8K.
This might seem like I'm taking this too seriously, and I definitely am, but I'd hate for someone to hold off on buying the LOTR trilogy because they think bigger and better is coming. This is it! I have 100% confidence that this is the last time these movies will be put on physical disc because there are no meaningful improvements left to be made.
Ignoring, of course, the inevitably overpriced Supreme Nerd Set coming this year that packages the same movie discs with exclusive bonuses of Peter Jackson's dog's production diary videos.
Well sorry "Jack" but now you are contradicting yourself also!.
"Atmos has nothing to do with AQ. It's a surround format for positional audio", I think that's the opposite of "clearer"!
"Atmos has everything to do with 4K", NO it has nothing to do with 4K or UHD as a matter of fact!
4K or UHD is about PQ, object based soundtracks(ie Dolby Atmos/DTS:X) is the AQ part, two separate things.
They are NOT "relied on each other" or even a "UHD is a package deal"!
There are BD disc that have object based soundtracks and 4K or UHD disc that don't.
"I am not sure what you're driving at with "perception" ", then you say "those of us buying UHDs are already chasing quality we can't always perceive"!
You gave a perfect example of it.
"I also thought HDR was stunning on my $900 65" TCL ... not exactly enthusiast equipment"!
Clearly you "perceive"(understand) that there is better "quality" PQ than what your are looking at but you don't think it's "worth" the value to get it(or be an enthusiast).
So no matter what you are watching(4k or UHD), you're not taking full advantage of it because of your equipment(s).
"even then we know there's no benefit to 8K.", even to your admission(opinion) this is not so when you said "It's physically impossible to see a difference at anything above 4K unless your display is larger than 100" or you are sitting closer than 6 feet from it"
I do agree with you that object based soundtracks is the biggest upgrade BUT it's really only worth it if done properly.
Unfortunately most people have not experienced what it can actually do.
The good thing is since people "perceive" what they are hearing is true "Atmos", then it's reality to them and that's all that matters
1st off let's clear one thing up, "Atmos" has nothing to do with 4K/8K that's all AQ.
What something was shot in isn't the main factor on the PQ you are watching, it's the transfer of it that counts the most.
It's not uncommon to have a "2K" transfer having a better PQ than a "4K" transfer.
Technically it may be true it's "physically impossible to see a difference" BUT what is perceived is a different story.
Just look at what you perceive, "4K" vs "HD" it's "no big deal"!
HDR CAN be a benefit but only if the transfer is good AND your equipment can take full advantage of it. Most displays can't take full advantage of HDR capabilities also.
There is a PQ difference between a 65" OLED vs TCL, people will debate how much and or the worth of that difference but there is one.
How your player processes the PQ to your display plays a big role here also.
This is done thru tone mapping and since there is no set standard on the best way to do this, everyone has their own process.
As fun as this conversation is it's all comes down to perception!
Just look at streaming, many people think it's "good enough" and/or is "good".
How often do you read someone saying" people still buy disc!"
Same happens with AQ many people see "Atmos" and think it's better.
They buy an OLED and use a "Atmos" soundbar or entry level speakers and that's great!
"Atmos has nothing to do with AQ. It's a surround format for positional audio", I think that's the opposite of "clearer"!
"Atmos has everything to do with 4K", NO it has nothing to do with 4K or UHD as a matter of fact!
4K or UHD is about PQ, object based soundtracks(ie Dolby Atmos/DTS:X) is the AQ part, two separate things.
They are NOT "relied on each other" or even a "UHD is a package deal"!
There are BD disc that have object based soundtracks and 4K or UHD disc that don't.
"I am not sure what you're driving at with "perception" ", then you say "those of us buying UHDs are already chasing quality we can't always perceive"!
You gave a perfect example of it.
"I also thought HDR was stunning on my $900 65" TCL ... not exactly enthusiast equipment"!
Clearly you "perceive"(understand) that there is better "quality" PQ than what your are looking at but you don't think it's "worth" the value to get it(or be an enthusiast).
So no matter what you are watching(4k or UHD), you're not taking full advantage of it because of your equipment(s).
"even then we know there's no benefit to 8K.", even to your admission(opinion) this is not so when you said "It's physically impossible to see a difference at anything above 4K unless your display is larger than 100" or you are sitting closer than 6 feet from it"
I do agree with you that object based soundtracks is the biggest upgrade BUT it's really only worth it if done properly.
Unfortunately most people have not experienced what it can actually do.
The good thing is since people "perceive" what they are hearing is true "Atmos", then it's reality to them and that's all that matters
I talk about my old $900 TV because I'm trying to get into the mind of the type of person that would need to buy a theoretical 8K format. I'm running a projector at 120" now ... I definitely "perceive" and value 4K. There is simply no overlap in the technology needed to benefit from 8K, at the size needed, at a price smaller than 5 digits. The best LG can do is an 88" OLED that costs $30,000. If someone buys it with plans to sit farther than 5 feet away, they are wasting their money. 3D had a much lower cost of entry and much more tangible benefit and it flopped hard. Innovation in the TV space is going to be cost reduction on OLED and similar emitter technology (Quantum dots?) until large screens with perfect contrast, intense colors, and no burn-in are affordable. 8K resolution isn't going to drive that.
I am trying to help people understand that they can safely purchase this movie set because there will never been an 8K physical release (streaming someday, sure). What are you trying to do exactly? Nitpick everyone's use of terminology? We know what we're talking about.
The nice Panasonic players do some things with tone mapping that the average person won't care about. For most people, the best thing about a good player is that it actually plays your whole disc collection. It's a real, frustrating problem. If your PS5 plays all of your discs, you are good to go. And freaking lucky to have been able to purchase a PS5.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
As I mentioned prior I did comparisons, Xbox X being one. Xbox was clearly the worse over all of them. This was especially true if you were going to watch a BD disc, it's upscaling was not very good.
With that in mind comparing it to a $400 player like the Panny 820 is not fair. Since you lose DV the Panny 420 is a better comparison.
You mainly get the performance of the 820, IMO it's was not even close!
On sale the 420 can be had for $150 and the lowest it's been was $130.
Since I haven't actually used the PS5 I can't make any conclusion on it's performance.
I talk about my old $900 TV because I'm trying to get into the mind of the type of person that would need to buy a theoretical 8K format. I'm running a projector at 120" now ... I definitely "perceive" and value 4K. There is simply no overlap in the technology needed to benefit from 8K, at the size needed, at a price smaller than 5 digits. The best LG can do is an 88" OLED that costs $30,000. If someone buys it with plans to sit farther than 5 feet away, they are wasting their money. 3D had a much lower cost of entry and much more tangible benefit and it flopped hard. Innovation in the TV space is going to be cost reduction on OLED and similar emitter technology (Quantum dots?) until large screens with perfect contrast, intense colors, and no burn-in are affordable. 8K resolution isn't going to drive that.
I am trying to help people understand that they can safely purchase this movie set because there will never been an 8K physical release (streaming someday, sure). What are you trying to do exactly? Nitpick everyone's use of terminology? We know what we're talking about.
You can get "Atmos" from many different options, now they all fall under different qualities also.
How good each is "perceived" will vary from person to person. Just because you think one doesn't work doesn't make it true for anyone else.
I can tell you from personal experience the more you can follow Dolby's overhead recommendation(placement & angles) using reference quality speakers the better the performance/quality.
If your understanding of "Atmos" is suppose to "improve" any other channel YOU don't understand the "technology".
Like surround it mixes the sound and when done properly it moves it around you depending what you are watching. Object based codecs ups the ante and moves it around in more planes causing an immersion.
Dolby nowadays doesn't suggest which option is better (like they 1st did), they just show you the options and how to set them up, smart business move on their part.
You are semi correct when saying "Some discs send sound to them and some don't", they do send information to them just some "transfers" are better than others.
Less quality equipment(ie speakers) means you will "perceive" even less.
That's why you hear so many people suggest that you can skimp on "Atmos" speakers because there isn't much there.
It's all about perception "I'm running a projector at 120" now ... I definitely "perceive" and value 4K".
Unless your projector is a good "4K" version you are "wasting your money" with this 4K/UHD/DV trilogy(or any 4K).
If it's a 1080P and you are not using one of the Panny's players with it, IMO you are wasting even more money, PJ's get the biggest advantage from Panny's "optimizer" and pretty much a must-have for you guys.
If "8K" doesn't come around on "disc" IMO it's not going to be because of the "perceived" benefit, it will be more because people will continue to choose aesthetics/convenience(ie streaming/digital) over quality(disc) like they do now.
War of the Worlds 4K Dolby Atmos transfer was not very good, the BD version with DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 is actually better. Even the PQ did not get a very good transfer!
So sad but true, I was soooo looking forward to this movie it had so much potential!!!!!
Leave a Comment