ESHBG said:
Oh wow 2011, LFL you are soooo up on the new and current technology! Hey maybe in 2012 we can get the super duper version on Betamax!!!
LFL/Luca$ has shown us all time and time again that they are a total joke of the industry, the originals were flukes and only ended up as the magical masterpieces that they were because Luca$' fat hands were inadvertently kept out of most of it, and he has successfully killed SW and turned away all of the true fans...
Until I see a *TRUE* OOT restoration out there (no crappy Laserdisc rip, non-anamorphic crap either), they don't get another dime from me...
I really don't understand this mentality. Whether or not it's true, it simply defies logic. This is LFL we're talking about. Not Warner Bros, not Sony Pictures, not Paramount, etc. LFL. How many top tier releases does LFL have in their archives? Well, there's Star Wars and Indy. And that's about it. WB has numerous hit titles. If they screw up one title, they can learn their lesson and apply their new wisdom to some other title. And hey, maybe rerelease the first title a few years later.
LFL? Just Star Wars and Indy. A lot less room for mistakes.
What kind of budget does your average big Hollywood studio have to work with when making DVD's? I don't know either but 10:1 it's a lot bigger than LFL's budget.
Why should LFL automatically take the plunge on such a big venture when (A) the 2004 and GOUT discs are and were such nice, tidy sellers and (B) there's no reason to think the Blu-Ray market has even begun to peak just yet?
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I'm this big Hollywood/DVD industry expert and all that but what I know of business and entering new ventures indicates that LFL (with their smaller catalogue and lesser budget) has been wise to stay out of the rat race like they have given how well their standard res DVD's are selling.
The LFL folks have made many mistakes (2004 remastering/audio problems) and bad choices (letterboxed widescreen GOUT discs) but keeping out of the Blu-Ray pissing contest isn't one of 'em.