The more lines you scan off a film negative, the more accurate the result. It's better to scan more lines and scale down then it is to scan only the lines you need, because the result is more accurate. You could scan it at 10,000 lines if you so desired, but the accuracy increase becomes exponentially less and less as you add more and more lines until it's almost entirely meaningless (and in terms of perceptual difference it is entirely meaningless).

When scanning a film for DVD release, they scan at about 1080 (like the OT was for the 2004 SSE) because that’s the point at which there’s no further noticeable benefit (or at least it's a good enough rough point for a rule-of-thumb, plus it's already HD-ready - however for HD it would be even better to scan at a higher resolution still of about 2000 lines and scale down to 1080). I agree with Lucas, and Coppola that high definition digital filming is more detailed then 35MM film. I saw Superman Returns just the other day, and I can't say I've ever seen more detail on screen. At least half the DVD's in my collection I would have no intentions ever of replacing with HD versions later on in years to come, simply because I don't have faith that their film stock would hold the detail to warrant it - in fact, the only real difference in many instances would be that the compression would be much better with newer HD technology.

The point is that the 35MM master negatives for the OOT - in my personal opinion - are less detailed and contain less picture information then 720p high-definition. Personally I think the only reason some directors would favour film over HD isn't for the resolution, but for how well it actually picks up the locations you're shooting on - outside or in sets - digital doesn't like natural lighting as much as film.

Anyway, you're welcome to your opinion that film can hold six times the information as 1080p – I just don't share it, and it's not because I don't know as much as you, it's because HD looks more detailed.