Dial "M" For Murder DVD???? (1 Viewer)

[Thomas T]

Steve, I think Donald Spoto's remark sums it up pretty well.

3-D prevents you from getting totally involved in a film as cinema. You can't possibly forget where you are and get totally involved in the story, characters and plot because you are constantly reminded you are in a theatre watching a movie. 3-D is fun and I certainly intend on catching some of the 3D flicks in the theatre here in L.A. at the upcoming 3D festival but I'm at a loss by its proponent's resentment at it being called a gimmick. It's not an insult, it's a fact. Personally I think watching Raiders Of The Lost Ark or Jaws in 3D would be less effective than more because of the distancing of the 3D effect. And let's face it, 3-D failed because its novelty wore off.

As for those here that imply Hitchcock was open to new innovations and would have embraced 3D if it were not for the cameras ..... why? Hitchcock never embraced wide screen cinema and never shot a film in CinemaScope or Panavision. True, he did shoot in VistaVision but it was projected (normally) at 1.85.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

3D isn't exactly 'Pure Cinema' as Hitch called it. He was a serious filmmaker and believed in the power of direct images presented with powerful emotion. 3D is at it's best in fun, hokey movies. Dial 'M' For Murder would have been an even greater film if it had just been shot flat.

But no matter what you say about this film, one thing remains - and will remain forever and ever: Grace Kelly is absolutely stunningly beautiful in this film, 3D or flat, even a blind man could see that!


Gordy

 

[Derek_McL]

Have any of you seen the version of The Birds in the Universal Theme Parks (I think its the one in Florida but I'm not sure) where the creatures come out of the screen at you ? Its only a clip they show I think along with the stabbing footage from Dial M for Murder.

While this is quite entertaining in a theme park setting I don't know what it would like watching at home. Would you need to wear stupid glasses for instance or have the technical boffins got round that now ? For certain scenes it might improve the experience in a shock/horror sort of way but I don't know whether I fancy watching a whole film in 3D.

As for Hitchcock's attitudes the fact is the examples of Dial M and The Birds suggest he was genuinely interested in 3D but these experiments seem to have been abandoned pretty quickly. Hitchcock also was a really innovative director who strove more than anyone I can think of to make us think what we were seeing was real. The attempts at the ten-minute take in Rope for example were attempts to make us believe this film was happening before our eyes in real time.

The fact Hitch abandoned 3D (he had plenty of control over his 50s and 60s films) to me suggests that he concluded that it worked against the most important thing involving the audience in the story and the characters. As Donald Spoto says it was a gimmick that was really uncinematic and drew the attention away.

So if the film emerges on DVD in a flat version (sorry Bill) to me it isn't much of a loss. 3D was a false dawn for an industry with falling revenues due to the advent of television. The fact that these gimmicks are now best suited to a theme park attraction tells me all I want to know.

 

[GregK]

So does 3-D enhance or detract from the overall experience? I think we've seen it can be subjective. Someone once said Cinemascope was only good for shooting snakes and coffins and I don't agree with that either.

As was posted earlier, if you can make it to the LA area on September 19th, at 9:30PM the Egyptian will run "Dial M for Murder" in it's original 2-strip Polaroid 3-D process and you can judge for yourself. Just be sure to purchase your tickets ahead of time if you want to be sure to attend.
http://www.3dfilmfest.com/features.php

 

[Steve Phillips]

No footage from THE BIRDS was shot in 3-D. That stuff at Universal is a re-creation.

Me, I think bad CGI is a lot more of a distraction than stereoscopic depth. THAT takes me out of the movie.

The world is in color and 3-D. I've never felt that my stereoscopic vision was distracting and decided to walk around with an eye patch so I'd see everything in 2-D.

Sound, color, widescreen and multi channel sound are all ways to make movies more lifelike. 3-D is just another way in theory.

What's funny is all of the commments about depth being distracting are exactly the same things that critics said about sound, color, widescreen and multi-channel sound when they came in. The situation is admittedly a bit different, since those technologies were eventually prefected and 3-D never really has been, at least as far as projection goes.

If you've only seen junk like JAWS 3-D, you really shouldn't judge the potential of the process with material like that. Some of the older films from the fifties used the process to draw you into the story, not distract you from it. (INFERNO is a good example). Use your imagination and think beyond Jason shooting a speargun into the camera.


All the more interesting is that when discussions of 3-D versions being on DVD comes up, many posters just use the thread as an place to state that the original 3-D versions are stupid anyway, and we should be happy with the modified
flat versions.

To that I say, if you want to settle for the flat versions, then do it. But some of us want to see the films *as photographed*, whether or not you think it is necessary or desirable. SOUND FAMILIAR?

I pity the person who stumbles on this forum and says that they hate widescreen and that fullscreen DVDs are far better and not much of a loss.

I want to see black and white movies in black and white.

I want to see color movies in color.

I want to see widescreen movies in widescreen.

I want to see academy ratio movies in academy ratio.

I want to see 3-D movies in 3-D.

To those of you who want to watch colorized movies, panned and scanned movies, academy ratio movies cropped or stretched to fit widescreen TVs, flat versions of 3-D movies, or some other alteration, I say, go ahead. Do what you want. I have no problem with these alterations being on the market, as long as I can the see the originals. Just don't try to convince me that I shouldn't want to see the originals.

Bottom line, we know that when DIAL M hits DVD the flat version will be there.

 

[Derek_McL]

Fair enough I'm all for seeing films as they were originally made. I'm right there with you on that one. When films were made in widescreen the DVD should be in widescreen but at the end of the day what's important is the quality of the film i.e. how good it is. All the great directors knew that : its the story and the characters that matter. Whether its in widescreen, fullscreen, 3D or whatever. I agree totally with what Gordon says.

Also while cinema is an attempt to represent real life or to make us think its real I've never thought of it as a duplication of it. When Hitchcock came the closest he ever came to duplicating it in Rope it was actually pretty dull.

All great art to me is a representation of a particular aspect of life not a depiction of life in total. That's why silent films are often considered the height of cinematic artistry because their depiction of the world was limited. This allowed film-makers to use the visual side of cinema to its greatest extent and arguably with the advent of sound no one has matched the imagination of the silents.

So while I agree films in widescreen etc should be released in their original versions I view many of these innovations of the Fifties with mixed feelings. The widescreen was great for epics but really little else.

 

[rich_d]

This gets back, ultimately, to what I suggested first off a few posts ago: a new kind of OAR argument. Whereas in cropping a wide film we're talking about removing physical picture area, and in turning mono or stereo into 5.1 we're talking about remaking an element of the film (redesigning its sonic impact), it all amounts to the same thing, aesthetically: alteration. In this new OAR argument (Original Axis Ratio: x to y to z), we're discussing actual width and height (x and y) and perceived depth (z).

Your argument seems to be that not having Dial M for Murder in a 3D DVD alters history. I don't think you meant that literally but were suggesting that we were losing our historical perspective.

In much as a photographic images perserve the Civil War (in a way) I would agree that a DVD could be considered perserving history as well - even if a DVD is not film.

I've been a proponent of showing movies in their original ratio with their original sound elements. Those that suggest that 3D doesn't count because it didn't last consider this - if everything went 3D (at some point) would we support changing older 2D films to 3D (if possible)? I don't think so.

As your argument is more philosophical in nature so is my reply. Obvious to us both - DMFM is not a great test case for 3D as it was released in 2D on first release, as well.

However, someone could make the case that video is not film and therefore trying to preserve the original and "essential" film experience on DVD is illogical at best. There are some that would say that preserving film experience only happens in the theatre and therefore that's the only preservation that matters.

I note that those people on the way to say The Egyptian are enjoying the original experience on a "state-of-the-art" audio system.

 

[Bill Burns]

Derek wrote:

As Donald Spoto says it was a gimmick that was really uncinematic and drew the attention away. ...

So if the film emerges on DVD in a flat version (sorry Bill) to me it isn't much of a loss. 3D was a false dawn for an industry with falling revenues due to the advent of television. The fact that these gimmicks are now best suited to a theme park attraction tells me all I want to know.

No need to apologize (even tongue in cheek ) -- we're all about heartfelt opinion (other sorts are rarely worth hearing). But as to your last sentence in that post, "The fact that these gimmicks are now best suited to a theme park attraction tells me all I want to know," allow me to offer this: a man who many consider to be the most innovative cinematic storyteller of our time, and just about all count among the great technological innovators within the medium, James Cameron, chose to shoot his recent (released earlier this year) documentary Ghosts of the Abyss in field sequential 3D (and anamorphic 'Scope Panavision 3D, in fact, a first on both counts for the long time fan of Super35). I found it so captivating, enthralling, and deeply moving that I saw it twice in theatres, and wept like a baby both times. There are a few "gimmicky" uses of the technology just to get the audience into the spirit of adventure that lies at the picture's narrative core (that extendable claw is a hoot), but for the most part it is used to give us the precise sense described by Bill Paxton in the narration: that of a spirit or ghost floating above not only a ship, but a moment, frozen in time. As the bubbles of the sea slowly rise in front of our faces, as starfish and other sea bottom features unfold as if we were children opening our eyes on a new world for the first time, a world through which we are at once crawling and then floating, simultaneously participants and omniscient observers ... the experience is extraordinary.

Cameron uses the technology on a multitude of levels in this very short (about an hour long) picture. The heart of the 3D process is the immersion -- far from feeling as if I'm watching a theme park ride or feeling removed from "proper" 2D images, the 3D absolutely enthralled me in both viewings, recruiting me as a participant in every action on-screen, an ethereal companion to Paxton, Cameron, and the entire crew as they revisited this extraordinary time capsule of tragedy and heroism.

But Cameron goes beyond immersion -- when the film needs to present several POV (points of view) at once for narrative thrust, 3D allows him to place windows on-screen in a tiered, simultaneous fashion, presenting us with information in a dynamic way that would be far more confusing and unsatisfying in 2D. He also uses the 3D, aesthetically (a nice, robust word I'm using here as "artistic voice" or "within the artistic perspective of the artist"), to capture an essence of the undying, the undiminishing, in this rusting, decaying piece of history miles beneath the sea. It not only immerses us with exceptional force and dynamism, it makes our own dive to the wreck of the Titanic a journey very nearly physical.

I adore 2D cinema. I have what is probably an unhealthy obsession with it. I feel very similarly about most artistic disciplines -- I find them inexhaustible in their ability to affirm the value and purpose and beauty of the world and the human soul. Art is an intoxicant unlike any other. But to experience Ghosts of the Abyss in 3D was to move beyond the art of cinema into something ... overwhelming and indescribable. It's one of the great theatrical experiences of my life, and I had the privilege of undergoing it twice, and not on an IMAX screen, but on a small cineplex screen with plastic field sequential glasses. Hardly what anyone would call a cutting edge environment, and yet it made no difference -- field sequential in even so small and limited a setting was an amazement like few others.

3D, in the hands of a team intent upon exploiting its possibilities and using it not as a gimmick, but as a tool not unlike sound or color or editorial narrative, is a tool I'd fully equate with these others, and perhaps take a step further: 3D can transform a cinematic experience. It doesn't enhance 2D; it's a new cinema fully deserving of its own set of rules and procedures, its own voice, its own critical consideration. Far from something cheap and silly and sensational tossed to an audience hungry for a change from television (or an audience studios hoped to make hungry for a change from television) in the 1950's, 3D, for me, has proven a tool that moves beyond anamorphic 'Scope and multi-channel sound and Technicolor "razzle dazzle" (was that a bone for all you Chicago fans? Nah ...) to become more than a repurposing of the cinematic language -- it is its own cinematic language.

This isn't just me doing a song and dance, of course. 3D filmmakers working today (mostly, it seems, in the IMAX venue) have expressed a similar respect for the potential of 3D, and about a week afterRoger Ebert's review of Ghosts of the Abyss was posted to the Chicago Sun Times website, a review in which, despite mildly recommending the film, he seems to have had a reaction that is the polar opposite of my own (this isn't uncommon ), he posted correspondence from Ben Stassen, who bills himself as the "leading IMAX 3-D filmmaker," in an Answer Man column (note that the following link may or may not be active for long -- this seems to be the last Answer Man column still archived on the site, from April, and it may disappear when the next one is posted):

http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-...y-ebert20.html

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way and you'll find Mr. Stassen's argument. It's not dissimilar to my own, but concludes that James Cameron misses the ball and fails to use 3D on its own terms, as its own language. To the contrary, as I've detailed above, I find that Cameron has done precisely this, and has further made that new 3D language an experience many who do not live near IMAX theatres might enjoy by also distributing his film to "normal" theatres. It didn't play as widely as I'd have liked even still, but at least it was out there (ironically, the 3D IMAX within driving distance never carried it, but a cineplex about the same distance away did -- oh well ). I eagerly await a DVD of the picture, and I hope Disney steps up to the plate (if WB doesn't) and leads the way with a field sequential 3D disc (I can't imagine Cameron approving of any 2D version, as everything I've described would be drastically altered and lessened); if they do, this alone will be worth the price of the Slingshot viewing system, in my estimation.

Note that I said "new 3D language." I don't mean to imply that older uses of the technology failed to do these things (Cameron is obviously taking advantage of digital editing suites and other modern devices to use it uniquely, but the language itself was certainly there in the 50's), but rather that, as with all great cinema, 3D is ever new. As I sit down to watch 1929's The Iron Mask and marvel at the beauty and emotive energy of the film, it feels as if I'm watching something that was just made. It's more or less silent (a couple of brief speaking interludes have been restored), and it's in B&W, and all of the lead actors are (I presume) dead, so of course it wasn't just made ... but then it was, because as with all art that deserves the name, it is timeless. It speaks to that fundamental humanity that responds to beauty and the specific insights of theme and story regardless of the date it is shown, whether 1929 or 2009 or 5029. It is a contained work of storytelling, of artistry, of human expression, and it never dies so long as a projectable print (or other visual and sonic form) survives, but moreover it never really ages, either -- all real art is born of the soul, and the human soul has been the same since time immortal.

So ... I'd say that leaves us with a simple question: is 3D a cinematic tool, at the least, or its own new cinema at the most? I believe it must be one of these for my experience with Ghosts of the Abyss to have been so valid and rewarding, and if it's either, it's an art we must never allow to fall into a forgotten past.

I don't want (or intend) to diminish Ebert or anyone else who finds the technology unfulfilling or unsatisfying. But I do want to make the argument that no art, however great, is universally praised at any time in its existence. I could all but drown in the sea of indifference I continue to find in casual conversations about films made in general before the birth of the party with whom I'm speaking, and certainly of silent cinema as a whole. I've found many whom you couldn't pay to sit down and really, intently read Shakespeare (!), much less those much younger, yet somehow just as foreign, "bores" the Bronte sisters, or Fitzgerald, or what have you. If it's old, it's unappealing -- unless it's an antique, of course, and then maybe it's worth something. Money makes the world go 'round. Blech. Art makes the world go 'round, and that it isn't always or even often appreciated doesn't diminish its intrinsic value.

3D is an art. It isn't a gimmick. I'm going to make that statement carte blanche in the same way I'd state that color is not a gimmick, recorded sound is not a gimmick, movies are not a gimmick, the use of wax instead of tin foil cylinders on the early phonographs was not a gimmick, the move to vinyl was not a gimmick, digital technology in all its manifestations is not a gimmick, the printing press is not a gimmick ... everything new eventually becomes old, but anything that is either a true art or a true means of delivering art to the public is not a gimmick. If 3D is either an art or a tool of an art, it is not a gimmick. It is, in fact, priceless.

And so I once again hope the studios reconsider their no 3D policies (whether stated or implied) and give films made in 3D their just desserts on DVD.

Rich: I'm not sure if this was clear or not, but in the event I was obtuse (who, me? ), allow me to clarify: the history of which I speak is the history of the film, not its content. I'm trying to narrow that to the history of its production and sanctioned presentation -- a tool used should be a tool preserved. Color films shouldn't be seen in B&W, and visa versa ... etc.. If a narrative tool (a certain cut, a certain color scheme, a certain sound effect, and so forth) is used by the filmmaker in creating the product, it should not be removed from the product after the fact (even by the filmmaker, because the work as presented to the public at the time of its creation contained it -- this is where I brought Lucas into the loop; his "new" versions of the Star Wars films have validity because he made them and he prefers them, but the originals have validity as well, because they are the product he presented to the public at the time of their original creation, and their value both as a social influence and as a representation of what he decided should be seen at the time should never be undermined by "replacement" or "better" versions). In the event a product both with and without that tool was made and presented as "final," as the work the filmmakers wished folks to see when it was first released, then both versions should be preserved and available to the public today.

It's not a perfect argument, but it seems a wise compromise (pardon the pun on what follows ); if Welles' rough cut of The Magnificent Ambersons surfaced and could now be edited according to his telegrams to Robert Wise, we'd have Welles' true intent for the film ("they cut the heart out of my picture"). But the audience of the day only saw the studio cut (which includes sequences that were actually reshot without Welles). My argument is that we need both: Welles' version for its artistic value (this is what he wanted it to be) and the "historical" version for its social impact at the time (this is what it was when audiences first saw it).

Or so say I.

 

[rich_d]

I've certainly expressed my bias for films as originally presented, so I'll try not to become the department of redundancy department.

I also don't have a problem with filmmakers revising films as well. I would prefer the film as originally presented but I see no reason to go hard line on it. If there is something that bugs a filmmaker - something that they wanted to change but didn't have the budget, time or the technology to pull it off - I can understand why they would want to change it.

Things are generally better off left alone though. For example, I'm sure that if robotics were better and the shooting weather had been better, Spielberg would have shown the audience more shots of the shark. But Jaws would have not been as good. It's sort of like a painting -sometimes you just need to know when to put the brush down.

On James Cameron, no Cameron bashing from this writer. Technically complex films - excellent choice to get the call. Great innovative storyteller? Hmmm, I think I'll give the nod to several others.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I don't think there is a doubt that 3-D has been used as a gimmick, for its own sake, many times. Most of the films in the 80's are a good example.

Still, that doesn't mean it can't be used for more than that. It certainly has been. Many of the films of the 1950's period were far more than gimmick pictures.

As for the argument that some of these movies played flat upon original release, and therefore the flat versions aren't missing anything; I don't think that is the case. These films were shot to be shown in 3-D, and the fact that some of them were seen flat was not something that was planned, but rather a circumstance of the market conditions. It was a concession, and not at all ideal.

DIAL M probably works better flat than most 3-D films since it was shot late enough that they knew it was going to end up playing mostly flat anyway. But that doesn't change the fact that it WAS shot in 3-D.

Imagine if ROPE, Hitchcock's first color film, had been widely distributed in black and white prints only, and color prints had only been screened in a few cities and then disappeared. Let's say Hitch wanted it that way for some reason. Let's say the B/W version is what had been seen ever since on TV, VHS, and DVD. Would that change the fact that the color version was the original, and perhaps worthwhile? Would fans of the B/W print feel that they needed to make it their personal mission to convince those who wanted to see the original color version see the error of their ways? Would they go on record stating that they didn't care if the original was released along side with the B/W? I don't see how the situation with DIAL M is different.


Again, the flat print will always be available for those who don't care about the original version, just as panned and scanned versions of CinemaScope movies are available for the same reason.

P.S. I don't think GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS will get a 3-D release on DVD. Cameron hinted at a 90 min expanded print on DVD, but I bet it will be flat.

 

[rich_d]

Again, the flat print will always be available for those who don't care about the original version, just as panned and scanned versions of CinemaScope movies are available for the same reason.

The inference seems to be that:

flat print is to 3D as panned and scanned is to cinemascope ....... I don't think so.

 

[Steve Phillips]

That's your opinion. Many others might share it, but that doesn't discount the fact that still others want to see the movies as filmed.

Some people on this forum think that an open matte presentation of a movie like POLICE ACADEMY 6 or EUROPEAN VACATION is cause for alarm. There are loads of threads on this forum to prove it.

To me, that is ridiculous. It certainly is far less of an alteration than a flat version of a 3-D flick.

Still, I support them having the matted version available to them.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Steve, you're absolutely correct. Many people don't realize just how well-photographed and gimmick-free most of the 1950's 3-D movies are. Sure, there are exceptions like Fort Ti, Man in the Dark and the various comedy shorts (Spooks, Pardon my Backfire, Down the Hatch) but, for the most part, the depth is an important element of the dramatic narrative as utilized by the directors and cinematographers. This critical aspect of the films style and production is totally lost in the flat versions. For those reasons, the analogy to pan and scan is accurate. Either alteration is a degredation of the original cinematography.

People that are criticizing these films have not seen them in true 3-D (many haven't been shown that way in nearly 50 years) or just have a bias toward the process. This is most likely due to the bad gimmick films of the past 30 years (Frankenstein, Comin' at Ya, Friday the 13th, etc.) and horrible anaglyph versions of the 1950's titles. George Sidney, William Cameron Menzies, Alfred Hitchcock, Budd Boetticher, Raoul Walsh, Douglas Sirk, Ross Hunter, John Alton, Karl Struss, Lucien Ballard all worked on films in the third-dimension. Not exactly a bunch of hacks.

To imply that the stereoscopic versions of these films (which is precisely how they were intended to be shown) are not essential components of the filmmakers vision and intent, is absurd.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I'll agree with Steve and Bob. I've been privileged to recently see a number of the 1950s films presented in double system polaroid and the depth component is essential to the storytelling in most cases. The film INFERNO, for example, uses the stereoscopic photography to place the hero right in the midst of his peril (being stranded for dead in a desert). While the story may be the same if the film is seen flat, the intensity of his struggle was greatly magnified by having the added dimension of depth. Prior to seeing these films in their depth versions, I wouldn't have thought the analogy to pan-and-scan was warranted, but it is.

 

[rich_d]

The inference seems to be that:

flat print is to 3D as panned and scanned is to cinemascope ....... I don't think so.

Let me be more specific as to my issue (quoted above).

Panned and scanned is descriptive of a process of selectively showing portions of a widescreen film. Flat print or 3D - we don't lose non-selected elements and it certainly isn't arbitrary. Apples and oranges. Plus "panned and scanned" is a inflammatory term around these parts.

 

[Thomas T]

Re: "..... or just have a bias toward the process"

As opposed to having a "blind obsession toward the process"?

Re: "People that are criticizing these films have not seen them in true 3-D"

I've seen many films in 3-D theatrically including Dial M For Murder, Kiss Me Kate, House Of Wax and Miss Sadie Thompson.

Audiences disliked 3-D in the 50's which is why it died a mercifully quick death and directors disliked it too! A small but vocal HTF group insist we are being denied seeing these films in their true splendor but the truth is that it is you 3-D fanboys are the ones being denied, not the rest of us. I truly wish the studios would issue limited issues of this gimmicky format to make you guys happy, really I do. If the studios don't think this is cost effective, have them charge more for the 3-D sets as I'm sure fans would be willing to pay thru the nose for the chance to own them in 3-D.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

:rolleyes

 

[Steve Phillips]

Oh, we 3-D fans have *BOTH* eyes open, I assure you.

It is others who are blind...at least in ONE eye.


Thanks goodness there were enough "widescreen fanboys" to convince the studios to allow you to have the choice to see the original versions instead of P&S. Or the "black-and-white" fanboys who let the studios know that colorized movies shouldn't replace the originals.

Have you read the mission statement of this forum?

Remember, we are perfectly OK with you watching the altered version. But, in the true HTF tradition, we also feel we should have the original version available.

BTW, you know what's worse than a flat version of a 3-D movie? A panned and scanned and flat version of a widescreen 3-D movie!

Anyway, isn't it interesting that since *everyone* knows 3-D sucks, it just keeps on coming back....? Like a fungus, I'm sure you'd say...

 

[Thomas T]

No, Steve, I wouldn't compare the occasional attempt to revive 3-D to a fungus (after all i do like my mushrooms) but rather like ants at a picnic.

The attempts to link flat versions to panning and scanning and colorizations are cute but no soap. I'm well aware of the HTF's mission statement but I'm also aware of the tendency of some of its members to conveniently ignore it when it suits them, like sulking when a 5.1 remix is not provided on an original mono soundtrack because it does nothing for their multiple speaker set up. Their attempts to justify it by saying we're not missing anything pale next to the flat/3D argument, after all these films were shown flat during their initial run along with the 3D versions and the studios all knew it whereas Singin' In The Rain and Jaws to name just too mono films were never intended to be shown with 5.1 surround sound.

How about a little consistency, guys.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I always want the original audio track. In fact, I think the original track - be it mono (which should be formatted to only come out of the center speaker), Dolby Surround, or a discrete version of a mag stereo original - should be the default choice on EVERY film. The new mixes should be optional and clearly marked that they are remixes and not the original version.

I'm also for orignal depth version of films shot that way. Whether the films *also* played flat is irrelevant (an analogy: most stereo sound films of the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s also had a mono track for theatres that chose not to install multi-channel audio; those mono mixes are usually *not* a simple fold-down of the multi-channel audio and they should include both on DVDs of those titles if the elements exist), since the films *were* shot presuming they would be shown in 3-D. The 3-D is the standard version, the flat is the alternate version for theatres that chose not to show it in 3-D. DVDs of 3-D titles should include both versions.

I think that's pretty consistent.