Nothing in The Lord of the Rings
trilogy was shot on 70mm. That was a 35mm production through & through. Don’t know where you got that it was shot on 70mm.
Anyway, the short answer is likely - No. It’s not being “shot” in 4K. Unless a large part of the film ends up being live action 4K seems like a financially counter-productive expense for a project that is not captured in a real world environment with real actors.
Though since there’s money to be made I’m sure an upscaled “4K” release will be available when the film hits home video.
Holy crap, you're right. I'm gonna have to re-read a few film books I read in college, then. It seems as though all the information has started to melt together in my head.
Any who, I don't know if I would even bother with a 4K upscale. I don't even have a 4K system yet, and on the day I do, I would probably still wanna keep a 1080p system for all of the wonderful 2K/Full HD productions that were made. Heck, I still have a CRT TV in order to watch SD interlace-produced television productions without any de-interlaced filters interfering with the picture. The point is that I prefer to watch movies and TV shows in as close to the original production quality as possible, so upscales of any kind aren't my cup of tea.
And honestly, there isn't a whole lot convincing me to get a 4K system, since I would only want it for the HDR capabilities, and would obviously want to see those colors on an absurdly expensive OLED screen. I mean, I sit 9 feet away from the screen. You cannot notice any higher pixel resolution from that distance. The 4K would simply prevent any downscaling potentially negatively effecting the image. And seeing as how I don't want to pay $3,000+ for that kinda screen, I am more than content with my 1080p LED system.