CAMELOT - WARNER VID, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. (1 Viewer)

[Yorkshire]

Am I the only one in this position?
I love film, but I'm 47 and didn't get to see many films at the cinema until the late '70s and onwards.
Subsequently I have no idea how yellow or browen (or not) The Searchers or Camelot should be.
So I really just have to watch the film and enjoy it.
My feeling for some people at these forums is a strange mixture of both awe and pity. Awe that they know a film so well and care about it so much that they insist on such accuracy. Pity that this stance means that they cannot enjoy the Blu-ray of The Searchers as much as I do.
Whatever the truth, I know from comments at the time that both RAH and Martin Scorsese enjoyed the Blu-ray Disc/HD DVD of The Searchers when they saw it, even if they have issues with the disc which they've voiced since.
I must apologise for not being perfectionist enough to take this stance - if it's good enough for Scorsese, then I guess I'll just have to slum it and say it's good enough for me, too.
I'll just add a little story, then I'll leave it. I'm very fond of Fritz Lang's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, despite all its faults. A few years ago it became available to buy MOD. I grabbed it and thanked the stars that I didn't have to put up with my VHS copy. Now MOD pretty much means this very nearly never got a release, so I feel lucky to have it. I'm sure i could watch the disc with other members of these forums who could point out all of the problems with the transfer, but I'd rather just stay feeling lucky and enjoy the film.
I think we should expect he best on Blu-ray Disc, but when we get something second best we should probably remember we're often lucky to have anything at all.
Settling for second best? Maybe. But I just think of myself as a 'glass-half-full' bloke who loves his films.
Steve W

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/60#post_3922695
Am I the only one in this position?
I love film, but I'm 47 and didn't get to see many films at the cinema until the late '70s and onwards.
Subsequently I have no idea how yellow or browen (or not) The Searchers or Camelot should be.
So I really just have to watch the film and enjoy it.
My feeling for some people at these forums is a strange mixture of both awe and pity. Awe that they know a film so well and care about it so much that they insist on such accuracy. Pity that this stance means that they cannot enjoy the Blu-ray of The Searchers as much as I do.
Whatever the truth, I know from comments at the time that both RAH and Martin Scorsese enjoyed the Blu-ray Disc/HD DVD of The Searchers when they saw it, even if they have issues with the disc which they've voiced since.
I must apologise for not being perfectionist enough to take this stance - if it's good enough for Scorsese, then I guess I'll just have to slum it and say it's good enough for me, too.
I'll just add a little story, then I'll leave it. I'm very fond of Fritz Lang's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, despite all its faults. A few years ago it became available to buy MOD. I grabbed it and thanked the stars that I didn't have to put up with my VHS copy. Now MOD pretty much means this very nearly never got a release, so I feel lucky to have it. I'm sure i could watch the disc with other members of these forums who could point out all of the problems with the transfer, but I'd rather just stay feeling lucky and enjoy the film.
I think we should expect he best on Blu-ray Disc, but when we get something second best we should probably remember we're often lucky to have anything at all.
Settling for second best? Maybe. But I just think of myself as a 'glass-half-full' bloke who loves his films.
Steve W

I can't fault your position.

What some of us are seeing in Blu-rays is something other than what the filmmakers -- who really knew what they wanted on screen -- created.

It's all about filmmakers' intent.

Sometimes, as in the case of The Searchers, you get it as close to that intent as current technology allows. I only get testy when the technology is there, readily available, and isn't used for a film of real importance.

Or possibly when said technology is over-used.

Other than that, I believe many of us agree with you.

RAH

 

[rayman1701]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/60#post_3922695
Am I the only one in this position?

No, I feel the same way a lot of the time. If I knew more, maybe I'd have a slightly different feeling.

 

[KPmusmag]

Am I the only one in this position?
I love film, but I'm 47 and didn't get to see many films at the cinema until the late '70s and onwards.
Subsequently I have no idea how yellow or browen (or not) The Searchers or Camelot should be.
So I really just have to watch the film and enjoy it.
My feeling for some people at these forums is a strange mixture of both awe and pity. Awe that they know a film so well and care about it so much that they insist on such accuracy. Pity that this stance means that they cannot enjoy the Blu-ray of The Searchers as much as I do.
Whatever the truth, I know from comments at the time that both RAH and Martin Scorsese enjoyed the Blu-ray Disc/HD DVD of The Searchers when they saw it, even if they have issues with the disc which they've voiced since.
I must apologise for not being perfectionist enough to take this stance - if it's good enough for Scorsese, then I guess I'll just have to slum it and say it's good enough for me, too.
I'll just add a little story, then I'll leave it. I'm very fond of Fritz Lang's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, despite all its faults. A few years ago it became available to buy MOD. I grabbed it and thanked the stars that I didn't have to put up with my VHS copy. Now MOD pretty much means this very nearly never got a release, so I feel lucky to have it. I'm sure i could watch the disc with other members of these forums who could point out all of the problems with the transfer, but I'd rather just stay feeling lucky and enjoy the film.
I think we should expect he best on Blu-ray Disc, but when we get something second best we should probably remember we're often lucky to have anything at all.
Settling for second best? Maybe. But I just think of myself as a 'glass-half-full' bloke who loves his films.
Steve W

I am 48, and, just like you, I never saw most of these classics in their original release. In the case of CAMELOT I saw it at a revival house in 1976 when I was 13 years old. I knew the music because my parents had the Broadway Cast LP, but I was unfamiliar with the tragic story and I loved the experience of the film.
The other night I was watching the blu-ray of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S and, after a few minutes, all thoughts of blu-ray, of 1080p, of technology itself, went away as I lost myself in Holly Golightly's world. That is what I love about HD video - finally it can really look like film at home and one can forget the technology. In fact, I am still in awe of the fact that I can actually own a movie and watch whenever I want to.
Like you, I really just watch the film and enjoy it. Sometimes Mr. Harris (for whom I have profound respect) will say, "The average consumer will have no quibble with this." and I think, "He is talking about me!" I am happy with almost every blu-ray I own and sometimes I am startled when someone has a different reaction to a certain title. One of the few I have been disappointed in is APOLLO 13. I had the HD-DVD of that title first, which I think looks magnificent, and the blu-ray just doesn't look quite as good (as others on this forum have stated). But if I did not have the other DVD to compare it to I would probably be happy. Naively, I guess, unless something is glaring wrong, I trust that the studio has given us the best they can based on the condition of the film and how much budget they can allocate to a title. Many titles, like 2001 and PILLOW TALK look far better on blu-ray than I ever recall seeing before, on screen or TV, so that is thrilling to me - but I have no idea if those blu-rays perfectly represent the original because I never saw them. What do I know? - I just like the movie. And, as we know, even people who saw a film many times in its original release disagree over the details.
In the case of CAMELOT, I sat back and enjoyed the blu-ray and lost myself in the film. I cried when Arthur and Guenevere said their final good-byes. I do not honestly remember what the color was like when I saw the film in 1976, and although I saw it at a few other revival houses over the years (and at the Cinerama Dome in the late 1980s), the prints were usually beat up so who knows. But what I DO remember is that in the final scene, which I also find very emotional, the choir sings "Camelot" twice - and I remember that from 1976 because it gave me chills. So here I am, immersed in this film, awash in tears and having forgotten I am watching a blu-ray, and then that moment that I loved back in 1976 didn't come and I was yanked back to reality and thinking about technology and the mastering process etc etc and wondering how could this happen. Obviously, someone who was not impacted by the little touch of the choir singing in that spot would have no quibble with this blu-ray, just as I don't have a quibble with the color because I honestly was not impacted by the color in 1976. But that doesn't change the fact that something the original filmmakers intended did not end up accurately represented on this blu-ray; something I clearly remember and can attest to and that an earlier home video incarnation proves (the first pan-scan laserdisc, which I watched so many times I memorized it).
So, while in general I relax and watch the film and accept what the studio presents, every now and then something like this occurs and that is when I find the debate on this forum so interesting. I want to know what the experts think precisely because I am not an expert and it reminds me that not only is home video technology a science but it is also an art, which in any form is very subjective.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by KPmusmag /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/60#post_3922751
I am 48, and, just like you, I never saw most of these classics in their original release. In the case of CAMELOT I saw it at a revival house in 1976 when I was 13 years old. I knew the music because my parents had the Broadway Cast LP, but I was unfamiliar with the tragic story and I loved the experience of the film.
The other night I was watching the blu-ray of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S and, after a few minutes, all thoughts of blu-ray, of 1080p, of technology itself, went away as I lost myself in Holly Golightly's world. That is what I love about HD video - finally it can really look like film at home and one can forget the technology. In fact, I am still in awe of the fact that I can actually own a movie and watch whenever I want to.
Like you, I really just watch the film and enjoy it. Sometimes Mr. Harris (for whom I have profound respect) will say, "The average consumer will have no quibble with this." and I think, "He is talking about me!" I am happy with almost every blu-ray I own and sometimes I am startled when someone has a different reaction to a certain title. One of the few I have been disappointed in is APOLLO 13. I had the HD-DVD of that title first, which I think looks magnificent, and the blu-ray just doesn't look quite as good (as others on this forum have stated). But if I did not have the other DVD to compare it to I would probably be happy. Naively, I guess, unless something is glaring wrong, I trust that the studio has given us the best they can based on the condition of the film and how much budget they can allocate to a title. Many titles, like 2001 and PILLOW TALK look far better on blu-ray than I ever recall seeing before, on screen or TV, so that is thrilling to me - but I have no idea if those blu-rays perfectly represent the original because I never saw them. What do I know? - I just like the movie. And, as we know, even people who saw a film many times in its original release disagree over the details.
In the case of CAMELOT, I sat back and enjoyed the blu-ray and lost myself in the film. I cried when Arthur and Guenevere said their final good-byes. I do not honestly remember what the color was like when I saw the film in 1976, and although I saw it at a few other revival houses over the years (and at the Cinerama Dome in the late 1980s), the prints were usually beat up so who knows. But what I DO remember is that in the final scene, which I also find very emotional, the choir sings "Camelot" twice - and I remember that from 1976 because it gave me chills. So here I am, immersed in this film, awash in tears and having forgotten I am watching a blu-ray, and then that moment that I loved back in 1976 didn't come and I was yanked back to reality and thinking about technology and the mastering process etc etc and wondering how could this happen. Obviously, someone who was not impacted by the little touch of the choir singing in that spot would have no quibble with this blu-ray, just as I don't have a quibble with the color because I honestly was not impacted by the color in 1976. But that doesn't change the fact that something the original filmmakers intended did not end up accurately represented on this blu-ray; something I clearly remember and can attest to and that an earlier home video incarnation proves (the first pan-scan laserdisc, which I watched so many times I memorized it).
So, while in general I relax and watch the film and accept what the studio presents, every now and then something like this occurs and that is when I find the debate on this forum so interesting. I want to know what the experts think precisely because I am not an expert and it reminds me that not only is home video technology a science but it is also an art, which in any form is very subjective.

Great post! Thank you.

I have no memory of what Camelot looked like in 1967.

As to the original stereo mag master, I'm told that it no longer survives.

However, based upon surviving optical tracks, 35mm stereo dye transfer prints, etc, it should not have been a horrific task to re-combine the extant elements into a new and cohesive master properly representing the original. It does, however, require some investment.

RAH

 

[GMpasqua]

When I watched the blu-ray of "Camelot" it also brought me back to the time I saw it in the theater (the print may not have been new but it was clean and colorful) No other version of "Camelot" on home video brought me back to the theatrical showing. I really think the Blu-ray is very good and have no complaints (though the commentary is hard to sit through, the man's voice is so strained and nervous sounding that it is off-putting)

So many catalog titles look so good on blu-ray (and many are over 50 years old) it is almost like seeing them for the first time. Home video companies also only budget so much for a title, especially one which wouldn't sell millions of units - so there is only so much they can do.

Most home video departments at the studios have been hit hard over the last few years with the decline of DVD sales. Newer films have their video costs included in their film budget - so they are a different product altogether. But catalog titles have to generate the sales required to justify their Restoration costs.

I agree with Mr. Harris that an important film (which will sell very well) gets treated badly especially when they can go the extra distance. I keep hoping Eliza will get the blu-ray remaster she truly deserves.

 

[KPmusmag]

When I watched the blu-ray of "Camelot" it also brought me back to the time I saw it in the theater (the print may not have been new but it was clean and colorful) No other version of "Camelot" on home video brought me back to the theatrical showing. I really think the Blu-ray is very good and have no complaints (though the commentary is hard to sit through, the man's voice is so strained and nervous sounding that it is off-putting)
So many catalog titles look so good on blu-ray (and many are over 50 years old) it is almost like seeing them for the first time. Home video companies also only budget so much for a title, especially one which wouldn't sell millions of units - so there is only so much they can do.
Most home video departments at the studios have been hit hard over the last few years with the decline of DVD sales.  Newer films have their video costs included in their film budget - so they are a different product altogether.  But catalog titles have to generate the sales required to justify their Restoration costs.
I agree with Mr. Harris that an important film (which will sell very well) gets treated badly especially when they can go the extra distance. I keep hoping Eliza will get the blu-ray remaster she truly deserves.

Yes, I should say that, even for an "average consumer" like me, MY FAIR LADY on blu-ray is impossible to watch without constantly thinking about the lack of care given to it. It is the only blu-ray that I have ever taken the time to write (via snail mail) a letter of complaint to the home video company.

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/60#post_3922695
My feeling for some people at these forums is a strange mixture of both awe and pity. Awe that they know a film so well and care about it so much that they insist on such accuracy. Pity that this stance means that they cannot enjoy the Blu-ray of The Searchers as much as I do.

That was a great post, Yorkshire (I only quoted a tiny bit of it but I'm talking about the whole post)

Like you I'm not old enough to have seen a lot of these films when they were new and, while I know enough to pay attention when things go "horribly wrong," (MY FAIR LADY for example) I am not always bothered as much as others by some of the complaints I read about on this forum. While, as Mr. Harris always states, we should get as close to possible to the filmmaker's intent, I find a lot of what is written about various releases borders on an impossible ideal that some posters have created in their mind's eye.

While I also have blu-rays that disappoint me (some, like CHARADE, disappoint me more than they disappoint others) and a rare few that I despise (NOTHING SACRED for example) it makes me cringe when I read the vitriol and hyperbole on some of these threads. While Mr. Harris is always able to convey his feelings about a particular release in even and moderate tones, even going so far as to give us the background on why some discs are disappointing regarding original elements, etc., it's scary that a less than stellar blu-ray release justifies words like "idiot" and "crucify" in other posters. It's scarier, still, when anyone disagreeing with the usual suspects or finding these releases acceptable, are often called idiots or philistines, themselves.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Interesting discussion. When I first got THE SEARCHERS on Blu-ray, I had never seen the film before and was instantly captured by the acting, direction, story and great cinematography. The clarity of the transfer was stunning.
But the color didn't look right to my eyes. I was aware of that but was able to ignore it because of the films power.
However, when it was over and I watched the trailer in the supplemental section, I thought "THAT'S what the film is supposed to look like!"
I was disappointed and haven't watched it since. I hope it can be corrected.

 

[John Hermes]

That was a great post, Yorkshire (I only quoted a tiny bit of it but I'm talking about the whole post)
Like you I'm not old enough to have seen a lot of these films when they were new and, while I know enough to pay attention when things go "horribly wrong," (MY FAIR LADY for example) I am not always bothered as much as others by some of the complaints I read about on this forum.  While, as Mr. Harris always states, we should get as close to possible to the filmmaker's intent, I find a lot of what is written about various releases borders on an impossible ideal that some posters have created in their mind's eye.
While I also have blu-rays that disappoint me (some, like CHARADE, disappoint me more than they disappoint others) and a rare few that I despise (NOTHING SACRED for example) it makes me cringe when I read the vitriol and hyperbole on some of these threads.  While Mr. Harris is always able to convey his feelings about a particular release in even and moderate tones, even going so far as to give us the background on why some discs are disappointing regarding original elements, etc., it's scary that a less than stellar blu-ray release justifies words like "idiot" and "crucify" in other posters.  It's scarier, still, when anyone disagreeing with the usual suspects or finding these releases acceptable, are often called idiots or philistines, themselves.

Yeah, I always thought musicians were the pickiest people I knew (about their gear), but that title now goes to some home theater enthusiasts.

 

[rayman1701]

To expand a bit on my earlier agreement with Yorkshire's post....I'm 43, grew up in a small town with less than 4000 people. We only had a drive in, and the closest theater about 30 miles away, was in a town of maybe 7000 that didn't get movies for a while after they came out. I guess the first time I went to a halfway decent theater was when we went to Empire Strikes Back near my aunt's home in the suburbs of St. Louis. So most of my movie watching was at the drive in and The Movie Channel, or edited for TV. Even when we got a VHS player, our town had a small video store, with not the best selection. The most vivid memory of going to a theater was when we went over to another small town about 50 miles away to see Star Wars, and I remember standing out in the rain/cold (it's not like they got the movie in the summer, it was winter when they got it) in a line that stretched around the block. That was pretty amazing to me as an 8 year old, I remember getting lost in the film and being blown away by the spectacle of it. But I couldn't begin to remember what the picture looked like (not counting Lucas' changes over the years), so it amazes me when people have such vivid memories of how something looked in the theater. Heck even when I was a bit older and saw movies in better theaters, unless it was at the dollar show or something went really wrong, I never really noticed, I just enjoyed the movie. My first understanding that what we were seeing at home was not what was in the theater, when we got the Star Trek IV Special Edition VHS in widescreen. That documentary about what Pan & Scan was and did just blew my wife and me away, and we were widescreen converts instantly, even with only a 19" TV!

Since I've discovered this place, I've been eagerly learning all the issues/difficulties about getting movies onto a home video format. So I am grateful to all the people who know all the intricacies of the process and do their best to explain it to laymen like me. Although there are some issues, like edge enhancement, that I'm not sure I really want to learn how to spot, since it seems once you learn, it's impossible to not see.

So I'm happy to have as much selection as we have to actually see and own movies that I never had a chance to see in the theater, if at all. I know there can be issues, and wish that every release could be the highest quality possible. It also sucks that we finally have such a high quality medium for films now, and that both the will and the economics have changed so that fewer films will get the "full monty" restoration treatment. But, for all the issues that can arise, I still never thought I'd actually be able to have such a high quality "theater like" experience at home. So I'd rather have a "glass half full" view of how many quality Blu-rays have been released, and not dwell on the ones that are a bit disappointing. Now the ones with serious errors like the Gladiator "invisible" arrows, stuff like that is inexcusable. But I just don't have the personal experience about color to know instantly when I see an older movie that it's either right or wrong, and it seems like everybody has had different recollections of what is correct, since every theater gave a somewhat different presentation, for whatever reason.

 

[DeeF]

I love The Searchers, possibly my favorite movie. I watch the Bluray a lot, several times a year. The movie never disappoints me. I was just pointing out that the color is overly saturated with yellow on this latest transfer. It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the film, but it might be nice to see what it was really meant to look like.

 

[rayman1701]

Originally Posted by DeeF /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/90#post_3922797
It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the film, but it might be nice to see what it was really meant to look like.

I totally agree with that.

 

[haineshisway]

Just one more about The Searchers: They had a screening of the transfer used for the DVD and then the HD and Blu-ray releases (all of them used the same transfer) - the screening was at the Academy. In attendance, several John Ford scholars and people who really know the film. They were, in a word, appalled at the color - vocally - out loud - vociferously appalled. It's not just a few crazy people here - anyone who knows the film knows it didn't look like this, with all that yellow.
The film deserves a new, fresh scan and loving care, and with the new technology that wasn't available back then we could have something truly wonderful. Will it happen? I suppose if someone thought there were money to be made, maybe.

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by haineshisway /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/90#post_3922800
It's not just a few crazy people here - anyone who knows the film knows it didn't look like this, with all that yellow.

I don't think anyone is saying it's just a few, crazy people or that the color is right or the blu-ray perfect. It's the hyperbole associated with it that is distressing, as well as the idea that someone isn't entitled to NOT join the mob storming the castle and enjoy it anyway without being dismissed as a "joe six pack."

 

[David Weicker]

Just one more about The Searchers: They had a screening of the transfer used for the DVD and then the HD and Blu-ray releases (all of them used the same transfer) - the screening was at the Academy. In attendance, several John Ford scholars and people who really know the film. They were, in a word, appalled at the color - vocally - out loud - vociferously appalled. It's not just a few crazy people here - anyone who knows the film knows it didn't look like this, with all that yellow.
The film deserves a new, fresh scan and loving care, and with the new technology that wasn't available back then we could have something truly wonderful. Will it happen? I suppose if someone thought there were money to be made, maybe.

I assume that this reaction is genuine. However, I'm curious what colors these people were seeing. Considering the colors on the DVD don't match the colors on the Blu-Ray (even if they did come from the same transfer), its plausible this screening had its own color palette.
As for me, the colors aren't bad. They are more naturalistic and quite pleasing, which might not have been the original palette, but still doesn't make them bad. Not being accurate is not the same as being bad.
And frankly, the pluses (performances, script, music, direction, composition, resolution) far, far outweigh the negative.
David

 

[haineshisway]

I assume that this reaction is genuine. However, I'm curious what colors these people were seeing. Considering the colors on the DVD don't match the colors on the Blu-Ray (even if they did come from the same transfer), its plausible this screening had its own color palette.
As for me, the colors aren't bad. They are more naturalistic and quite pleasing, which might not have been the original palette, but still doesn't make them bad. Not being accurate is not the same as being bad.
And frankly, the pluses (performances, script, music, direction, composition, resolution) far, far outweigh the negative.
David

Last I looked we don't live in a yellow world At least the real world. Yellow seems to be the order of the day for new films. The DVD and Blu-ray are very similar, color-wise because they are from the same transfer - of course with Blu-ray colors are a bit more varied so that's that difference. In the end, all you need to know is it's wrong. That's the bottom line.

 

[MichaelEl]

I love The Searchers, possibly my favorite movie. I watch the Bluray a lot, several times a year. The movie never disappoints me. I was just pointing out that the color is overly saturated with yellow on this latest transfer. It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the film, but it might be nice to see what it was really meant to look like.

DVDs of older films often had an overall yellow tint - e.g., JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS. While I'm no expert on film, I tend to think this extra layer of yellow was used in order to boost contrast and impose the 6500K color standard on poor quality film elements. (At 6500 K, whites should look yellowish.) Many Blu-Rays of older films, on the other hand, seem to have an overall primary color tint - red, green, or blue - in comparison. This is probably the case with CAMELOT, although I haven't yet seen seen the disc. It's possible this tinting is occurring due to the light sources that are used on newer HD scanning equipment, but that is pure speculation on my part. One factor to consider though is that the white balance on many HD screens is not very good. More often than not, the default (standard) color temperature setting on an LCD is too green or blue. This is especially true for LCDs with LED backlighting. It's possible then that the color problems some people are seeing with CAMELOT have more to do with display calibration than any deficiencies in the transfer.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by MichaelEl /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/90#post_3922899
DVDs of older films often had an overall yellow tint - e.g., JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS. While I'm no expert on film, I tend to think this extra layer of yellow was used in order to boost contrast and impose the 6500K color standard on poor quality film elements. (At 6500 K, whites should look yellowish.) Many Blu-Rays of older films, on the other hand, seem to have an overall primary color tint - red, green, or blue - in comparison. This is probably the case with CAMELOT, although I haven't yet seen seen the disc. It's possible this tinting is occurring due to the light sources that are used on newer HD scanning equipment, but that is pure speculation on my part. One factor to consider though is that the white balance on many HD screens is not very good. More often than not, the default (standard) color temperature setting on an LCD is too green or blue. This is especially true for LCDs with LED backlighting. It's possible then that the color problems some people are seeing with CAMELOT have more to do with display calibration than any deficiencies in the transfer.

Yellow is generally used to cover yellow dye fade.

RAH

 

[rsmithjr]

The Searchers is one of the Warners titles that is continually on sale. it is $7.99 on Amazon right now. I have seen it for less.
It seems very possible that Warners originally made a large supply of disks but that the title did not sell. Warners and also Sony seem to have a large number of titles that are always available at great prices.
What I am suggesting is it is unlikely that Warners would now undertake a remastering of the title and the pressing of a new Blu-ray given that they still have a supply of disks that they haven't yet sold.
BTW I bought it when it was new and really enjoy the disk. A friend of mine claims to be an expert on the title and loves the disk. I will be doing an A/B comparison between the LD and the Blu-ray soon to see what that reveals.