S_Matt said:

The film was creatively and technically compromised by external forces. The film was "revisionist" even before it was finished. If you prefer that version, great, just remember what you're enjoying is not a film by Ridley Scott. Its a film by "Cynical studio stockholders".

I know that, but frankly, I'd enjoy the movie that way even if it was made by Ed Wood. I respect Ridley Scott's original vision and I am glad he got the chance to finish it but that doesn't make me prefer it for my watching experience.

I can see some of you lump Scott in exactly the same camp as Lucas - as rapacious revisionists with no respect for history, but this is just completely wrong and misguided.

I think I explained quite thoroughly how I don't think that in the slightest, as Scott being put into the exact same situation as Lucas (although Scott handled it with infinitely more taste and respect) didn't stop the originals from being released in comparable quality.

As for digital effects, well, there's only one almost 100% new shot in The Final Cut and even this still retains some of the original elements. Recompositing footage digitally is not "redoing" anything and I will repeat this as often as is necessary. A computer is just a tool. Its achieving exactly the same thing as an optical printer but with infinitely more control and precision.

And I will repeat as often as necessary that while a computer is just a tool achieving exactly the same thing as an optical printer but with infinitely more control a precision, it is a tool that wasn't available in 1977, 1980 and 1983 and therefore using it to recomp IS redoing the effects, as the lack of control and precision is as much a part of the original FX as models and use of motion control cameras - modern CGI animation can also be used to do the exact same thing as models and motion control cameras but with infinitely more precision and control, does that justify it's use in old movies?