Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

Cujoe wrote:
>  > 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...
>
> Cujoe
I agree with everything you said (except *maybe* that the long version 
of Aliens is better), but *I* still want as one option the ability to 
see the original release in as close to ideal theatrical form as 
possible in my home.

dick