CatBus said:
A call has been made to point out the logical fallacies and misinformed parts of your post, the ones that made Harmy too nauseous to respond to. Much as I think no actual person on earth could be so unaware of the world in which they live, I'm going to respond one more time as if you were not just trolling us.
Consider this baseless and irrelevant editorial of yours dismissed.
So here's your first few. Lucasfilm was sitting on some masters--a 4:3 Laserdisc master for the GOUT and a 16:9 DVD master for the 1997 SE. For the release we're talking about, you say they shouldn't scale the existing 4:3 master
I never said any such thing. I said that it isn't usually done. Practically all DVDs which were made from D1 masters were 4:3 (feel free to list some exceptions if you know of any).
(fallacy 1: strawman--nobody's suggested that they do this).
First: your fallacy claim is based on a false premise (see above), which inherently negates the claim. Second, at least one person has suggested that they should have done this (see post 1118).
Of course, they could have created an entirely new master for the OOT.
Irrelevant, given that I never said they couldn't have. In fact, in post 1079 I said:
"I know, which is why I said it wasn't nearly as good as it could've been (i.e., it could have been an anamorphic 16:9 transfer from a new 4K film scan, had they invested the time and money)."
(misinformed 1: this happens all the time, especially for popular titles;
Negated by your false premise. See above.
misinformed 2: those were not 4k scans for chrissake! This is Lucasfilm, not Sony!)
I said: "probably 4K scans" (does the bolding help)?
Fallacy 2: thinking that the person trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is someone other than the person releasing an anamorphic DVD in 2006.
A 4:3 DVD released at any time, whether in the 1990s or 50 years from now, is designed for a 4:3 TV, period. It is up to the consumer to decide whether they want it, and whether they want an ideal display for it. It was not advertised as being designed for 16:9 TVs, which negates your bizarre "theory".
Fallacy 3: false equivalence. A video game console released in 2006 that had troubles with HDTVs would and should be pilloried (this would be equivalent to the GOUT). Video game consoles released around the turn of the millennium or earlier would and should be given a pass (this is what you're talking about, and it's unlike the GOUT).
No, there is no "false equivalence", given that the analogy focuses on where the fault logically lies. It has nothing to do with people's disappointment. Anything can be released at any time, and it is always the responsibility of the consumer to know the specifications and decide whether he wants it or not. As long as the manufacturer doesn't misrepresent the product, then logically no fault can be placed on them for any problems or dissatisfaction the consumer has trying to make it work with hardware for which it wasn't designed.
By the way, new hardware based on the Atari 7800 and ColecoVision has been released, or is in the process of being released, and no, it doesn't output an HDTV signal, obviously. For someone to buy it, and then blame the hardware for not looking good on their HDTV would be absurd (and illogical).