I too am excited that the project is moving forward. I love The Frighteners, and own a decent LD transfer from an ebay purchase. And I would still be interested in the new attempt. We still don't know the full specs of the new release, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was something left out (or, *added*). Besides, you can't trust any "official" release-- just ask Lucasfilm.

How many botched DVD releases have there been? Some are quality control issues, i.e. the Back to the Future II & III misframed transfer mishap. Others are missing features that fans know should be included. And others are prints/cuts/versions that are inexplicably absent from release or absurdly altered. When a an old VHS release is complete, or has a better transfer or something, you wonder "Why they'd bother with the DVD anyway?" Sometimes it's almost a curse to be a devoted fan, or somewhat "in the know"-- ignorance truly is sometimes bliss. Fan Preservation is practically a must with certain films.

And on a side rant: why even bother releasing pan & scan garbage on DVD anymore? Consumers will get used to widescreen and get over it. Flat screen TV prices are coming down, the DVD successfully overtook the videocassette-- fullscreen is dead and should be pronounced as such, with toe-tag attached. And doesn't it cost more, and require more work to chop up movies for home video? Two totally awful pan & scan videos I remember watching are The Fan (the DeNiro flick), and Multiplicity-- which *needs* to be widescreen anyway, esp. with all the shots of multiple Michael Keatons. There was intrusive, bad panning throughout those movies. Ugh. Not to mention the whole "changing the director's vision" issue by literally changing the framing of shots that way.

Originally posted by: Karyudo
I try not to use too much profanity when posting, but HOLY FUCK is the Search function on this board the absolute shits.

I've been reading this otherwise cool board for awhile now, just now joining the ranks, and I agree.

However, I think I've discovered why Search is the shits. I don't know if anyone else noticed this: I searched for "frighteners" to get to this thread with no problem, so I assumed the search function worked fine-- this thread, and the other one mentioning Frighteners in the title showed up.

Then I searched for "Godfather" and nothing came up. "WTF?" I naturally wondered, because The Godfather was clearly mentioned in a thread, and spelled correctly, too. Then I theorized that maybe the search function only finds threads with the search words *in the thread title*. Sure enough, I tried "songs of the south" (which is misspelled within the thread title), and that thread came up in the search.

I don't know how useful this find is, but it helps to understand why the search function is limited.