Middle-Earth Limited 30-Disc Collector's Edition Includes Lord of the Rings and Hobbit Films Plus Bonus Materials for $800

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
2,804
0
0
Middle-Earth Limited 30-Disc Collector's Edition Includes Lord of the Rings and Hobbit Films Plus Bonus Materials for $800

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1344/1344910.jpgYou can get the extended edition of all six Peter Jackson films, as well as art, a sketch book, and over 70 hours of bonus content, but it will set you back a pretty penny.

There have been rumors of a mega-collection of Peter Jackson's two Middle-Earth trilogies - The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit - for a week or so now, and it turns out that the rumors are (unsurprisingly) true. There's a massive new collection of films, bonus material, and extra goodies, but it comes at a steep price - $800.

Currently listed on Amazon [http://amzn.to/2biRXdc] as on sale for $599.99 (with a regular price of $799.99), the collection includes all six Middle-Earth movies. Each movie is presented in its extended-edition format and stored in a faux-leather book binding. The set also includes a wooden shelf to store the films on.

You'll also get every piece of bonus content and extra footage that's been released, which adds up to over 70 hours of additional footage. The extras for The Hobbit are on Blu-Ray, but The Lord of the Rings extras are on DVD.

Also included is a replica Red Book of Westmarch full of sketches and artwork from the films. You'll also get original, frameable reproductions of watercolor paintings by conceptual artists Alan Lee and John Howe.

While that is a lot of additional content, what it doesn't include is the additional footage that Peter Jackson has been talking about creating for years. Word was that there were plenty of never-released deleted scenes, bloopers, and more, but they're nowhere to be seen here.

Honestly, if you're a fan of the series, you probably already own these extended edition releases, and you'd be paying $600 (or more) for new covers, a wood shelf, an art book, and some watercolors. If you don't own the films and you're into this, go for it, but unless those extras are a huge selling point for you, you'd be better off buying The Hobbit [http://amzn.to/2bK6j63] ($64.99) trilogies by themselves.

Permalink
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
Now to wait for the supercut of the life draining from Peter Jackson, from the energetic and bombastic live-action directing of Fellowship to a broken man slumped in a chair in front of a green screen during Five Armies.
 

Deathfish15

New member
Nov 7, 2006
579
0
0
$800....for 3 good movies and 3 mediocre to possibly bad movies? Six movies total?! That's $133 per movie! SO NOT WORTH IT! Who in their right mind would pay $133 per movie? WHO?!
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Now to wait for the supercut of the life draining from Peter Jackson, from the energetic and bombastic live-action directing of Fellowship to a broken man slumped in a chair in front of a green screen during Five Armies.
Poor man tried to soft-retire post-ROTK and was dragged to be sacrificed upon the altar of the Hobbit by giving his last vestige of energy to 3 movies that should never have been made.
 

Ralancian

New member
Jan 14, 2012
120
0
0
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Now to wait for the supercut of the life draining from Peter Jackson, from the energetic and bombastic live-action directing of Fellowship to a broken man slumped in a chair in front of a green screen during Five Armies.
Poor man tried to soft-retire post-ROTK and was dragged to be sacrificed upon the altar of the Hobbit by giving his last vestige of energy to 3 movies that should never have been made.
Studio's fault, when Peter Jackson was pitching LotR he was struggling to fit it into two movies but knew it unlikely he'd get three green lit. The studio saw what he was attempting to do and told "lets be honest its three movies". As proved by the extended versions there were actually almost 4.

When Jackson pitched The Hobbit he knew it was only two movies....the studio told him to make three as evidenced by the extended versions it was still two movies.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Ralancian said:
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Now to wait for the supercut of the life draining from Peter Jackson, from the energetic and bombastic live-action directing of Fellowship to a broken man slumped in a chair in front of a green screen during Five Armies.
Poor man tried to soft-retire post-ROTK and was dragged to be sacrificed upon the altar of the Hobbit by giving his last vestige of energy to 3 movies that should never have been made.
Studio's fault, when Peter Jackson was pitching LotR he was struggling to fit it into two movies but knew it unlikely he'd get three green lit. The studio saw what he was attempting to do and told "lets be honest its three movies". As proved by the extended versions there were actually almost 4.

When Jackson pitched The Hobbit he knew it was only two movies....the studio told him to make three as evidenced by the extended versions it was still two movies.
Shoulda been one honestly. Didn't need 2/3 of the crap they crammed into it. The book isn't even as long as the shortest book in LOTR, Two Towers... blech. It was all a "lets capture lighting in a bottle" crap and turned out exactly as soulless and mediocre as I thought it would compared to LOTR.
One good solid movie would have been better quality than the three mediocre faff we ended up with. Two would've been too much.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Ralancian said:
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Now to wait for the supercut of the life draining from Peter Jackson, from the energetic and bombastic live-action directing of Fellowship to a broken man slumped in a chair in front of a green screen during Five Armies.
Poor man tried to soft-retire post-ROTK and was dragged to be sacrificed upon the altar of the Hobbit by giving his last vestige of energy to 3 movies that should never have been made.
Studio's fault, when Peter Jackson was pitching LotR he was struggling to fit it into two movies but knew it unlikely he'd get three green lit. The studio saw what he was attempting to do and told "lets be honest its three movies". As proved by the extended versions there were actually almost 4.

When Jackson pitched The Hobbit he knew it was only two movies....the studio told him to make three as evidenced by the extended versions it was still two movies.
Shoulda been one honestly. Didn't need 2/3 of the crap they crammed into it. The book isn't even as long as the shortest book in LOTR, Two Towers... blech. It was all a "lets capture lighting in a bottle" crap and turned out exactly as soulless and mediocre as I thought it would compared to LOTR.
One good solid movie would have been better quality than the three mediocre faff we ended up with. Two would've been too much.
How about one 4-hour movie?
https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Ralancian said:
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Now to wait for the supercut of the life draining from Peter Jackson, from the energetic and bombastic live-action directing of Fellowship to a broken man slumped in a chair in front of a green screen during Five Armies.
Poor man tried to soft-retire post-ROTK and was dragged to be sacrificed upon the altar of the Hobbit by giving his last vestige of energy to 3 movies that should never have been made.
Studio's fault, when Peter Jackson was pitching LotR he was struggling to fit it into two movies but knew it unlikely he'd get three green lit. The studio saw what he was attempting to do and told "lets be honest its three movies". As proved by the extended versions there were actually almost 4.

When Jackson pitched The Hobbit he knew it was only two movies....the studio told him to make three as evidenced by the extended versions it was still two movies.
Shoulda been one honestly. Didn't need 2/3 of the crap they crammed into it. The book isn't even as long as the shortest book in LOTR, Two Towers... blech. It was all a "lets capture lighting in a bottle" crap and turned out exactly as soulless and mediocre as I thought it would compared to LOTR.
One good solid movie would have been better quality than the three mediocre faff we ended up with. Two would've been too much.
How about one 4-hour movie?
https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/
Kinda like Topher Grace's super-edit of the Star Wars prequels?
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
God dayum, even if I cared I wouldn't pay $800 for that crap.
 

Misterian

Elite Member
Oct 3, 2009
1,827
1
43
Country
United States
Christ, you'd have to be one filthy rich nutball to afford to buy something like that.

Last time I spent $800, I was buying current gen consoles, one of which I gave to one of my sisters as a present!
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Does it at least include the HFR version of The Hobbit or are we still never seeing that?
 

RikuoAmero

New member
Jan 27, 2010
283
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Does it at least include the HFR version of The Hobbit or are we still never seeing that?
We'll never see that. Blu-ray specs simply do not allow for HFR. However, I don't know the specs for 4K Blu-rays, but I do know for a fact 1080p Blu-rays are incapable of HFR.
About the only way I could possibly see it happening is if someone somewhere got a hold of the HFR masters, the ones being shipped to cinemas, and released THAT on the internet as a downloadable file.
But as a legit, commercial 1080p blu-ray, it won't happen because 1080p blu-ray players do not have the capability to play HFR. It was never in the spec.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
It would be tempting if the Hobbit films weren't all unnecessary middling tripe that marred Jackson's legacy.

Still... does look cool...
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Wintermute said:
Maybe it's because I live in a shitty country, but 800 dollars is a ridiculous amount of money for this.
I live in Australia, believe me the price is still fucking outrageous - it's nothing to do with your location.