EyeShotFirst said:

ChainsawAsh said:

zombie84 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Bingowings said:

it had a nice editorial comparing the 3Dising of classic 2D films to Ted Turner scribbling pastel shades over monochrome classics

That's good. That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

That's not the same. Ted Turner bought the films and changed them against the wishes of their owners. This is totally different--the owners are changing them on their own will.

Yeah, but I don't really care. It wasn't shot that way, so I refuse to see it that way. Even if a director chooses to colorize his own movie, as in your example, I'll never watch the colorized version, and I'll continue to wish it didn't exist, despite what the director says.

The same thing applies to 3D.

I still wouldn't have a problem with it if that was the case. It is the fact that each time Lazy Lucas and his goons make changes, they call it the definitive version and completely ignore all other versions. So 3D Star Wars will replace the SE and 2004 release as the hated version.

The Fanboys will say it is awesome though.

Well, I don't necessarily have a problem with directors doing that, so long as the original version is still available. I'll just pretend the colorized/3D-ized versions don't exist. It helps to not make me go crazy and kill people. ;-)