[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

Falacious argument.

If that's the case, then remastering or restoring any film would be sacriledge to the originalists. SW fanboys want the original un-altered trilogy to be properly restored, which by your definition is something not to be done. Shouldn't they want it as it was seen in the theaters in '77, '80, and '83?

Or the James Bond films...perhaps Lowry Digital shouldn't have restored those either.

Or Lawrence of Arabia...

Or the Indiana Jones Trilogy...

I could go on and on...


Look, this argument has been recycled ever since the days of DVD. Everybody wants the best possible presentation of the film on their home medium of the time, yet, when restoration/remastering doesn't or does occur that people don't like for whatever reason, people complain. In some cases, people complain about lousey tranfers, while others complain that it doesn't look like it did back in the theaters...I have a question for that..."Have you been to my local theater?" Quite frankly, it sucks...I go to a movie there and I wouldn't have any idea how a film is "supposed to look"...not to mention how it sounds. This is why I don't go to the theaters anymore. With the advent of HDTVs and now BD, there's no need to. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that whenever 3D TV becomes more mainstream, that it'll start putting cineplexes out of business. Because by then, the novelty of theaters will have worn off. Just as hi-tech home gaming consoles have put coin arcades out of business.

I'm not going to bother with the twenty-something pages that have been added since my last post, but 'restoration' refers to bringing something back the way it was originally, which is what I prefer, instead of this revisionism crap. How can that possibly be wrong?