PDA

View Full Version : Special Edition Trilogy VHS question



bobafrett
09-04-2003, 12:10 PM
Back when the Special Edition Trilogy set was released, I was not yet aware of the differences between Widescreen and Full Screen. As many are aware, sometimes the packaging is so close with just a small band saying if its wide or full screen. While I was watching the VHS version of the set I own, I noticed that I have the full screen. My question is, was there a wide screen version made? I have seen many eBay auctions with the SE box set, but they never mention Wide or Full screen, and I am a fan of the wide screen.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
09-04-2003, 12:29 PM
Yeah, there was one made, but it was relatively hard to get, i think, i could be wrong. I was a putz and didn't know the beauty of WS and i got the FS instead. The WS set is in a silver box instead of the gold and I think it says "wide-screen" on there somewhere. I'd look, but mine are upstairs, and all those stairs?!!?

I later got the WS as a gift when i graduated from high school. Cost roughly about 75 bucks, as it was rare those days in 2000. :D

plo koon 200
09-04-2003, 06:19 PM
I bought the Widescreen the day it came out. It was in a silver box and they had a bunch of full screen versions. I was not smart at the time and thought that becuase it was the only silver box that it was a rare edition. It said widescreen so I thought there was something special about it. I guess I was right and my accidental purchase paid off in the long run because widescreen is a zillion times better than fullscreen.

Exhaust Port
09-04-2003, 08:50 PM
I missed out on the Star Wars SE releases but do have both Full and Widescreen editions of the original SW trilogy that came out a few years before the SE. I'm glad I did purchase them as I prefer Han Solo just blasting Greedo. :D

bobafrett
09-04-2003, 11:16 PM
Great, I'll have to keep my eye open for them on eBay, even though it's not like I don't own enough copies of the trilogy already. Maybe I'll just wait until Lucas releases them on DVD, only this time I will wait to get the widescreen.

stillakid
09-05-2003, 12:38 AM
Why anyone would ever buy a "full screen" copy of any movie is beyond me. If you're only going to be allowed to see half the film, you should only have to pay half the price.

The best way to solve this problem is to let the studios know that you hate full screen by never buying any of them. Insist on widescreen and let the retailers know it.

2-1B
09-05-2003, 12:53 AM
I'm with you stillakid, I ALWAYS buy widescreen . . . except for The Master of Disguise because it was only released fullscreen. :D

:rolleyes:

I like the silver/gold boxed sets and still see them in the used CD stores on occasion . . . I see the fullscreen gold a lot more though. :(

JediTricks
09-05-2003, 04:03 AM
Why anyone would ever buy a "full screen" copy of any movie is beyond me. If you're only going to be allowed to see half the film, you should only have to pay half the price.People with smaller TVs might want to see more detail in the central focus of the film instead of less detail covering a wider focus - it's hard to enjoy a massive battle shown in letterbox when everything on the screen is a small dot. If they can't see it, they can't enjoy it. It's like Ted Turner's colorization, it's an affront to cinema and lessens the quality of the images, but it invites a greater opportunity to the uninitiated to experience the film.

Besides, widescreen's just a gimmick to counter television's overwhelming grasp on the viewing audience... 50 years ago! :D

Exhaust Port
09-05-2003, 07:51 AM
Once again, the MAN is just keeping us down with Widescreen.


I went to the store 2 weeks ago to finally by ATOC on DVD and couldn't find a single Widescreen copy anywhere. There were tons of the Full screen but tha was it. These things were clogging the shelves so I had to go without. I might be forced to purchase it online since it's so hard to find the proper version in an actual store.

gtrain29
09-05-2003, 09:02 AM
I missed out on the Star Wars SE releases but do have both Full and Widescreen editions of the original SW trilogy that came out a few years before the SE. I'm glad I did purchase them as I prefer Han Solo just blasting Greedo. :D

One of the best scenes in ANH and lucas took it out. Does anyone believe he will reinsert the original Greedo demise into the archive additions when the OT is finally released on dvd? I do. I think Lucas knew that was a mistake. I also think he'll finally put the cut scenes into the OT. I believe!!!

stillakid
09-05-2003, 09:54 AM
People with smaller TVs might want to see more detail in the central focus of the film instead of less detail covering a wider focus - it's hard to enjoy a massive battle shown in letterbox when everything on the screen is a small dot. If they can't see it, they can't enjoy it. It's like Ted Turner's colorization, it's an affront to cinema and lessens the quality of the images, but it invites a greater opportunity to the uninitiated to experience the film.

Besides, widescreen's just a gimmick to counter television's overwhelming grasp on the viewing audience... 50 years ago! :D


:D So true, but this is the format that filmmakers are working with now so it should be respected. That'd be like an art gallery lopping off pieces of The Mona Lisa so it could be round to match all the other round things in their museum (hypothetically). Same with colorization. The argument for it has always been that had the filmmakers had color back then, they would have used it. Maybe so, but they didn't and the cinematographers made specific choices based on what they had to work with. Can you imagine Citizen Kane in color?

In terms of the "size" issue, buy a bigger tv! ;) But seriously, yes, buy a bigger tv. Motion Pictures/Films/Movies aren't conceived and produced for the small screen. They are meant to be seen at a movie theater in a format that is larger than life. Of course we all know that with the new technologies from the past 50 + years that people will watch them at home as well. In light of that, some allowances are made during shooting sometimes to place more emphasis in the middle portion of the frame, but (unless we're talking about a run of the mill comedy) Directors and DPs still try to utilize the entire frame whenever it serves the purpose of the story. That intent shouldn't be casually excised just because the lazy masses don't feel like putting down the Cheetos to go to the theater.



Once again, the MAN is just keeping us down with Widescreen.


I went to the store 2 weeks ago to finally by ATOC on DVD and couldn't find a single Widescreen copy anywhere. There were tons of the Full screen but tha was it. These things were clogging the shelves so I had to go without. I might be forced to purchase it online since it's so hard to find the proper version in an actual store.
I'd have to double-check to be sure, but I don't believe that Walmart, for one, even carries widescreen. They have a certain...um, clientelle, they believe, that isn't interested in (read: not smart enough or interested enough in understanding) watching the widescreen format. I'm not sure if any other major retailers have this policy.

bobafrett
09-05-2003, 03:09 PM
I'd have to double-check to be sure, but I don't believe that Walmart, for one, even carries widescreen. They have a certain...um, clientelle, they believe, that isn't interested in (read: not smart enough or interested enough in understanding) watching the widescreen format. I'm not sure if any other major retailers have this policy.

This could explain why I didn't see the silver box at Wal-Mart where I bought my SE trilogy box set at.


Why anyone would ever buy a "full screen" copy of any movie is beyond me. If you're only going to be allowed to see half the film, you should only have to pay half the price.

Well, I for one only bought it at the time because I didn't know there was a Wide and a Full screen version of any movie. Now that I do, I buy all my DVD/VHS movies with wide screen when possible.

Exhaust Port
09-05-2003, 03:56 PM
This particular trip I was at a BestBuy which does carry both. I hope they learned a lesson when purchasing so many full screen versions to only have them collect dust on the shelf.

2-1B
09-06-2003, 01:16 AM
Wal-Mart still carries Widescreen for some titles - today I saw Wide and Full versions of LOTR Two Towers. :)

I do recall seeing both versions of AOTC last November but haven't noticed lately what they have . . .

In fact, I ordered AOTC Wide off of Wal-Mart.com last year because it came with an exclusive set of 6 widevision cards. :happy:

stillakid
09-07-2003, 08:07 AM
Wal-Mart still carries Widescreen for some titles - today I saw Wide and Full versions of LOTR Two Towers. :)

I do recall seeing both versions of AOTC last November but haven't noticed lately what they have . . .

In fact, I ordered AOTC Wide off of Wal-Mart.com last year because it came with an exclusive set of 6 widevision cards. :happy:


Maybe they're changing their ways. But I was shooting some "content" for Disney a couple of months ago and they insisted that it be in 4:3 because "Walmart won't buy widescreen material." Hmm.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
09-07-2003, 12:17 PM
I didn't know exactly what widescreen was until DVD came out. Besides, most VHS movies don't have ws versions for some reason. I have yet to find the SE in widescreen.

JediTricks
09-07-2003, 11:36 PM
So true, but this is the format that filmmakers are working with now so it should be respected. That'd be like an art gallery lopping off pieces of The Mona Lisa so it could be round to match all the other round things in their museum (hypothetically).Er, no, it'd be like if the Mona Lisa was so large that you couldn't see all of it in the room it's displayed in because there's not enough room to back far enough up to see it all, so the museum cuts off the top and bottom to fit the audience's frame of vision. Granted, the museum *could* knock down the wall so viewers can get far enough away to take it all in, but many people would rather be in the same room as it to see the details of the face rather than all of the painting.

Same with colorization. The argument for it has always been that had the filmmakers had color back then, they would have used it. Maybe so, but they didn't and the cinematographers made specific choices based on what they had to work with. Can you imagine Citizen Kane in color?That's incorrect, filmmakers have always had the option of color, it was simply a more expensive and time-consuming process using hand-painted frames. Time and time again, many filmmakers have chosen B&W over color well after the industry had changed to color but audiences generally equate B&W with cheap production values and lack of progress. It's that same stigma that was being fought (albeit misguidedly, IMO) with computer colorization, trying to introduce something good to those who don't trust the medium.

In terms of the "size" issue, buy a bigger tv! But seriously, yes, buy a bigger tv. Motion Pictures/Films/Movies aren't conceived and produced for the small screen. That is ludicrous, the general audience isn't going to choose to spring for a television that costs more than a car simply so they can see Ephant Mon drooling in clarity. The 4:3 ratio of TV isn't the fault of the mass audience, it's an industry standard dating back to when movies were rougly in 4:3 ratio themselves. If the Motion Picture business doesn't want to conform to the home audience's needs, then they should stop trying so desparately to capture the home market at all and concentrate on getting that audience back into theaters. But they don't, of course, because the home market is a very strong share of the take these days, often vital to ensuring a film's budget for the high-priced stuff and equally vital to building a following for the low-release, non-budget, indie stuff.

Directors and DPs still try to utilize the entire frame whenever it serves the purpose of the story. That intent shouldn't be casually excised just because the lazy masses don't feel like putting down the Cheetos to go to the theater.As if it's entirely the audiences' fault that the theater experience is - dollar for dollar and time exhausted - so unrewarding these days. The movie and theater businesses have not kept up with the needs of the masses and now the masses are expressing it with their actions, or in many cases, inactions. And the only way the suits at the studios know how to counter that is to make bigger and more expensive mindless drivel in the hopes of having a big weekend, but do they try to eat those costs or do they pass those $100 million budgets including $20 million costs to hire the stars onto customer in the form of raising ticket prices - which itself in turn causes lower turnout which then causes the theater to charge more for concessions which starts the cycle all over again. And don't forget building more and more multiplexes even when there's no business for them, thus raising prices for the consumer some more.

If the film is to be shown on TV, you bet your old aunt fanny someone on the shoot is going to want the film to make some sense on that medium. It's not like America is going to go out tomorrow and switch to HDTV - which isn't even true cinema ratio anyway and thus only a band-aid on the problems of widescreen vs TV ratio - you can't blame the audience for an industry standard they didn't create. Like I referred to before, while you might want to see all of the Mona Lisa no matter how much detail is lost from viewing it at the proper distance, some folks will prefer to see the details even if it means just viewing her face. So you'll have to forgive me if I find your total blame of the situation on the audiences largely arrogant, lacking empathy of a large portion of the general public, and at least partially misguided. I may find widescreen preferable, but I don't fault people who own 19" TVs and would rather see the details the movie's focus rather than not. You can just chalk up this post to me being annoyed with the inherent snobbery that comes with purism and absolutes of anything -- if you can't see it from their POV, why would you expect them to do the same when each group thinks they're right?

stillakid
09-08-2003, 10:11 AM
Er, no, it'd be like if the Mona Lisa was so large that you couldn't see all of it in the room it's displayed in because there's not enough room to back far enough up to see it all, so the museum cuts off the top and bottom to fit the audience's frame of vision. Granted, the museum *could* knock down the wall so viewers can get far enough away to take it all in, but many people would rather be in the same room as it to see the details of the face rather than all of the painting.
That was a better analogy, thank you. However, I stand by my assertion that the "exhibitors" have no inherent right to alter the original work to suit either their limitations or the desires of the audience. The artist in any medium chooses a format and size which best "says" what they wish and goes with it. Whether we're talking about a 1:1.85 movie or a Spencer Tunick ( http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_696643.html ) photo, the interest by the audience to see more detail might be there, but it becomes the audience's responsibility to find a way to do that if they make the choice to not view the art in the way the artist originally intended.



That's incorrect, filmmakers have always had the option of color, it was simply a more expensive and time-consuming process using hand-painted frames. Time and time again, many filmmakers have chosen B&W over color well after the industry had changed to color but audiences generally equate B&W with cheap production values and lack of progress. It's that same stigma that was being fought (albeit misguidedly, IMO) with computer colorization, trying to introduce something good to those who don't trust the medium. Wow, that's splitting hairs. In essence, I was correct. Sure, back in the day, they could have hand painted all the frames, but at 24 per second, that's nearly 173,000 frames for a two hour film. Hardly practical when they could just choose to shoot black and white using that sensibility.



That is ludicrous, the general audience isn't going to choose to spring for a television that costs more than a car simply so they can see Ephant Mon drooling in clarity. The 4:3 ratio of TV isn't the fault of the mass audience, it's an industry standard dating back to when movies were rougly in 4:3 ratio themselves. If the Motion Picture business doesn't want to conform to the home audience's needs, then they should stop trying so desparately to capture the home market at all and concentrate on getting that audience back into theaters. But they don't, of course, because the home market is a very strong share of the take these days, often vital to ensuring a film's budget for the high-priced stuff and equally vital to building a following for the low-release, non-budget, indie stuff.
Yes, you're correct, the audience isn't at fault for the format...except that at the same time, it is. Industry (whatever industry we're talking about) responds to the marketplace. If everyone ran out today to buy a widescreen television, sitcoms would start shooting in 1:1.66 tomorrow. But since that is unlikely, the motion picture branch of the entertainment industry is the one to make concessions, which, as I mentioned, includes pushing most of the "important" information inside the tv-safe area of the groundglass. But again, if the audience wants to see Ephant Man drooling in clarity, then why should the "artist's" creation be vandalized just because somebody isn't motivated enough to either A) get their butt to the large screen at the local multi-plex, or B) to budget their money so they can buy a large screen at home?

But this is where art and commerce collide, I suppose. How much ground are artists willing to give up in exchange for more people wanting to purchase their product? Oh, they can lop off the sides of our movies, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. But at the same time, when that check arrives, it takes the sting away. Right? ;)


As if it's entirely the audiences' fault that the theater experience is - dollar for dollar and time exhausted - so unrewarding these days. The movie and theater businesses have not kept up with the needs of the masses and now the masses are expressing it with their actions, or in many cases, inactions. And the only way the suits at the studios know how to counter that is to make bigger and more expensive mindless drivel in the hopes of having a big weekend, but do they try to eat those costs or do they pass those $100 million budgets including $20 million costs to hire the stars onto customer in the form of raising ticket prices - which itself in turn causes lower turnout which then causes the theater to charge more for concessions which starts the cycle all over again. And don't forget building more and more multiplexes even when there's no business for them, thus raising prices for the consumer some more.
Hmm, according to the Box Office Mojo http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly, the yearly box office take gets bigger every year. Unlike the music industry, which as seen losses (particularly in their CD singles), theater going is still apparently a popular pasttime. Arguably, the growing home market is actually driving traffic into movie theaters as interest in this form of entertainment reminds people just how fun it can be to watch a movie (as opposed to going to the amusement park or any other thing they could choose).

There's no doubt, and you'll get no argument from me, that the particular logic that studios use to choose their projects and stars is silly. While it does make a bit of sense, in practice, it really hasn't proven itself out. The fact remains that making any movie is a crapshoot. Just like throwing all of your money into one stock on Wall Street, making a movie is an incredibly risky venture and studios can't be blamed for hedging their bets in whatever way they can. When it works, they can point to the success and use it to justify their decisions. When it doesn't, (ie, they use an A list star and the movie bombs), they can point to other factors (ie, audience, up against other big movies, etc) which may or may not have caused the movie to bomb. In the end, whatever the cause for success or failure, nobody can ever predict accurately how the audience will react so concessions are made every day to help ensure that somebody will see it, whether that means using stars or framing a movie so that it will play well on TV even though it's large screen version will look less than spectacular. Concessions rarely ever please both parties, so when filmmakers are forced into making their movie look great for TV, then how can anyone truly expect the theater version to blow them away? Or vice a versa?



If the film is to be shown on TV, you bet your old aunt fanny someone on the shoot is going to want the film to make some sense on that medium. It's not like America is going to go out tomorrow and switch to HDTV - which isn't even true cinema ratio anyway and thus only a band-aid on the problems of widescreen vs TV ratio - you can't blame the audience for an industry standard they didn't create. Like I referred to before, while you might want to see all of the Mona Lisa no matter how much detail is lost from viewing it at the proper distance, some folks will prefer to see the details even if it means just viewing her face.
That's their responsibility then to find a way to do it in a way that doesn't vandalize the artist's original intent. The audience doesn't own the piece. They're just "borrowing" it for their personal pleasure for a short time. Having said that, let's say that people choose to not show up to see the painting because it's simply too frickin' big. Well, the artist can then choose to react to that feedback and either alter his original work (his choice) or he can alter the way he works on his next project in order to drive more traffic to his wall of the museum.


So you'll have to forgive me if I find your total blame of the situation on the audiences largely arrogant, lacking empathy of a large portion of the general public, and at least partially misguided.
Why is it arrogant? It's rational and practical consideration of the situation. Artists create stuff that they hope an audience wants to see. The audience either chooses to see it or not. That should be the situation. But option C has crept into the equation which allows the original work to be vandalized. I say that with full understanding that it is out of practical economic rationality that the sides are lopped off of virtually every movie ever made. As mentioned, this comes down to the battle between art and commerce, one in which, unfortunately for society, commerce seems to win no matter what.



I may find widescreen preferable, but I don't fault people who own 19" TVs and would rather see the details the movie's focus rather than not. You can just chalk up this post to me being annoyed with the inherent snobbery that comes with purism and absolutes of anything -- if you can't see it from their POV, why would you expect them to do the same when each group thinks they're right?
People who own 19" TV's are also the ones happy with recordings made in EP mode on their VCR's. Point being, people with 19" TV's typically aren't all that concerned with the "art" of movies or "art" of anything for that matter. If the vicarious thrill is what they're after, then great, more power to them. But what is being lost here is that admission that that thrill is enhanced by seeing the entire frame as shot. Snobbery? Focus? How about that shot in The Empire Strikes back when the shield doors are being closed. Geesh, I almost forgot that Chewy puts his head forlornly on the landing gear because in the Pan & Scan version, all you see is Leia. Sure, she's the "focus" as you say, but doesn't Chewy's reaction mean anything? I beg to differ. It wasn't until the widescreen versions were released that the full impact of that sequence was realized as intended by the writer and the director. Can the audience get by without seeing the right side of the frame? Of course, and we did for a number of years. But should we? This isn't "purism" or "snobbery" or anything else. It's just a rational choice in a world that gets dumbed down more and more each day in the name of ease (laziness) and commerce.

JediTricks
09-09-2003, 02:25 AM
Movies are a theater medium, they're not really supposed to be a home medium, that's the point of using that huge screen all wide like that. The home market is mostly about business, about presenting a COPY of what was created for the theater, not actually presenting the original. The theater has unique visual, aural, and often atmospheric qualities that the home market audience in general simply can't reproduce, nor should they be expected to.

BTW, there are films from the turn of the 20th century that were in color, they used hand-painted frames and looked incredible. It was an expensive process and probably done out of love of the art as much as wow-factor, but it *was* done.

Television sizes are controlled by regulations on the part of the FCC, you cannot transmit a publically-broadcasted signal that doesn't conform to the television standard design. With the HDTV update to this regulation, they are trying to phase out the 4:3 for a newer widescreen design with higher resolution, but it takes a lot of time and equipment changes to get everybody up to speed, at least 10 years to change over, and that's going to cost the television industry - both manufacturing the sets and broadcasting the programming - as well as the general public a lot of money to deal with. It's not something you can just snap your fingers and have happen right away, and the technology wasn't even available to do this 2 decades ago.


why should the "artist's" creation be vandalized just because somebody isn't motivated enough to either A) get their butt to the large screen at the local multi-plex, or B) to budget their money so they can buy a large screen at home?Again, you're blaming the home market for this when the artist could simply avoid the home market altogether if this was just about artistic integrity, but obviously it's not as simple as that. The home market is almost never the artist's canvas of choice, it's a business reality that helps get the film to the artist's true canvas, the theater screen.

I notice nobody complains about the artist's vision being compromised by the ability to pause, rewind, and mute a film, yet that is more in control of the home market audience than anything else and can completely shatter the artist's choice of pacing and sound - vital pieces of the craft. At the theater, you are meant to be at the director's mercy as to controlling these things, yet home market dashes that to pieces and nobody bats an eye. Why the double-standard here? Is it because movies are supposed to be taken as a visual medium, and if that's the case, that visual medium is supposed to be taken frame by frame rather than a whole?

I found those typse of comment arrogant because they don't take into account the audience for which home market is created, instead ONLY focusing on the artist point of view (which I find a little flawed because no artist has to take these studio jobs and money thus sacrificing control of their product, but they do anyway). They only accept that the artist has created art, not that the home market audience is there for both art and entertainment. It seems arrogant to assume that the secondary audience which pays their hard-earned money to see the product should sacrifice their entertainment due to a situation that is beyond their control. The home market is largely not a group of cinemafiles who spend thousands on home theaters with massive widescreen high-rez projectors, they're generally average people with a federally-regulated standard television in an affordable size in their average living rooms. Many of these people want to see the focus of the story in a reasonable detail on their average TVs rather than squinting at vague blobs.


How about that shot in The Empire Strikes back when the shield doors are being closed. Geesh, I almost forgot that Chewy puts his head forlornly on the landing gear because in the Pan & Scan version, all you see is Leia. Sure, she's the "focus" as you say, but doesn't Chewy's reaction mean anything? I beg to differ. It wasn't until the widescreen versions were released that the full impact of that sequence was realized as intended by the writer and the director. Can the audience get by without seeing the right side of the frame? Of course, and we did for a number of years. But should we? You ever watch WS version of ESB on a 19" tv? You can barely make out characters' expressions this way. We're not talking about a huge theater screen where the images are clear as a bell and larger than life, we're talking about a mass audience that has no choice but a piddly 400 pixel 3-color design that's 40 years old and using a compressed imaging system (vhs or DVD really). Do you know how close you'd have to be to that TV to simulate big-screen theater conditions using a widescreen image? Even if the pixels weren't massive and ugly at this point, even if the radiated light wasn't damaging your eyes at this distance, even if the colors weren't badly separating, you would have to be about 2" away from the tube! That's not reasonable viewing for some people, and it's arrogant to say that your viewpoint is the only reasonable one, that our sacrifice is the only one that matters. Yes, widescreeners like ourselves sacrifice detail at the home market nearly as much as pan-n-scanners, we sacrifice clarity for the original field of view, is not that loss of clarity a "vandalism" of the artistic intent, why is our sacrifice the only one that matters?


You know what I think it really all boils down to? Going back to the Mona Lisa metaphor: displaying in the theater is the actual canvas hanging in the museum; while displaying in the home market is just the postcard you can buy at any souvenir stand in France. Some people will buy the postcard that shows all of the Mona Lisa, other people will buy the one that shows the details of the key to her charms, her face and famous smile.

2-1B
09-09-2003, 04:06 AM
but not her eyebrows. :cry:

stillakid
09-09-2003, 12:17 PM
Movies are a theater medium, they're not really supposed to be a home medium, that's the point of using that huge screen all wide like that. The home market is mostly about business, about presenting a COPY of what was created for the theater, not actually presenting the original. The theater has unique visual, aural, and often atmospheric qualities that the home market audience in general simply can't reproduce, nor should they be expected to.
Exactly! A motion picture is created for the theater. And taking this into account:


You know what I think it really all boils down to? Going back to the Mona Lisa metaphor: displaying in the theater is the actual canvas hanging in the museum; while displaying in the home market is just the postcard you can buy at any souvenir stand in France. Some people will buy the postcard that shows all of the Mona Lisa, other people will buy the one that shows the details of the key to her charms, her face and famous smile.
...it becomes the audience's choice to either experience the full glory of the original or to choose the reproduction that inevitably falls short in at least one way or another, be it size or detail or cropping choices. Yes, in high theory, it would be nice if no artwork was reproduced in such a way that it's original dimensions, form, and/or creation material was altered in such a way as to diminish the original intent and beauty et al. However, that's impractical and not even necessarily desirable for anyone, including the artist. Not everyone can visit the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, nor would it be sensible for everyone to visit Los Angeles to see the single release print of a feature film. So, yes, some concessions are made all the time.

I think, though, that the point is to limit them to the absolute necessary. Should ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN be shown in Pan & Scan? Anyone who says "yes," hasn't seen it like that. It's ridiculous. If you watch it on tv, there is a scene in which the telecine guy didn't know how to effectively "pan" his camera, so what you end up with is two noses talking to each other for a couple of minutes. Well, you certainly get your detail, but was a close up on two noses really what the Director was after? I'm not so sure about that.