I would prefer OAR, which is one of the reasons I will be buying the set on DVD. The fact that the filmmakers are OK with the change does count for something with me though. I agree with the statement of yours I bolded. Regardless if its Ken Burns or the World at War filmmakers they are using the original films as part of their story and they may modify it as needed to fit the vision of what they are creating (the Ken Burns example). If World at War was made today and they did the same crops on combat footage would it be OK (like History Channel did with WWII in Color)?BobO'Link said:. If they had always cropped them for this format, I'd be a little more forgiving. And if this was "Citizen Kane", and Orson Welles did the cropping, I'd also be a little more forgiving. World At War though is a bit of a special case.
Stepping back for a second, I think Rich did a good job with this review. This wasn't like someone cropping Citizen Kane, or colorizing Casablanca where it would be a no brainer to reject that out of hand. It was a documentary comprised of hours of combat footage edited with the approval of the creator. I think that requires a reviewer to give it fair consideration, and regardless if you agree with his conclusions or not, Rich did just that.