> Fortunately for me, that's not the argument I use. I'm a purist - I
want to
> see a film the way it was first released. It's that simple. Directors'
> intentions mean little to me, whether that be about displaying their film
> full-screen on TV a la Kubrick, or wholesale revision a la Lucas.
>
> Mike
I don't want to get too far off subject AND I realize that the
discussion has been about aspect ratio, but...
I don't think we can use the term "a film the way it was released" as a
guideline. If you want to include the film's "content", it's not that
simple.
Many films original theatrical release was not what the director wanted
due to Hollywood's 2 hour "limitation" and other factors such as censorship.
Jim Cameron's long versions of "Aliens", "The Abyss", and even
"Terminator 2" were much better than the original theatrical release.
You can also include many more movies in this category (Leone's "Once
Upon a Time in America" for example).
I realize that this 2 hour thing has been greatly relaxed in recent
years, but the point is: I'm not sure we can use the original release as
gospel anymore. What with extended versions (I know, some are just crap)
and new scenes (e.g., Lord of the Rings)and deleted scenes, etcetcetc...
