The decision may have been made some time ago, but it was almost certainly after Wells started his anti-1.66 tirade. And there is no one who likes giving the man credit less than I do. This was absolutely and without question due to the effort he spearheaded. It's a shame that bullying tactics had to bring the change about, but in this case they worked, and the outcome they produced was the right one.haineshisway said:
Right back at ya, Jeff.Bob Cashill said:
I agree. All this hoopla would've been avoided had they included both versions from the start. Why simplify if one can complicate?Russell G said:
Mr. Wells might not agree, but I think the constant discussion of the aspect ratio conflict here and other boards probably helped Warner in rethinking their plans. Warner reads this board daily and I'm not about to suggest it's "only" because of us that, the 1.37 version is coming out, but we've had two threads dedicated to Shane and this ratio conflict so we've kept the discussion in front of them. My congratulations to the fine work of Mr. Wells and the people he enlisted in his fight for this 1.37 release.John Hodson said:
You might be right.haineshisway said:
It's probably because they don't want to change the pricepoint.Brandon Conway said:Right back at ya, Jeff.
As for the disc being 1.37:1 only - well, a pity they can't release it with both ARs. I'd like to see it in 1.66:1 as it was shown in major theaters theatrically in 1953.
I may cancel my pre-order as I indicated earlier if it is 1.37:1 only, but truth be told I'll still probably pick it up since this is a situation where neither AR is wholly "wrong" or wholly "correct".
More than likely, which is reasonable.Robert Crawford said:
The poll *must* have influenced their thinking; at least, it surely added to the weight...Robert Crawford said:
The poll, but I think the discussion was well done here with little of the usual emotional comments that usually sidetrack a good discussion into a name-calling exercise. People can discuss and disagree without being disrespectful and without throwing darts at studio executives. Who by the way, are human too and probably take great pride in doing the right thing besides dealing with the usual corporate politics like the rest of us that work in the corporate world.John Hodson said:
Can't we just be happy that the decision was reversed without throwing darts at Paramount?Mark-P said:
Maybe the poll, but in fairness to Mr. Wells, he printed his first article about the aspect ratio back on March 16th, so who knows when he contacted Warner or Stevens Jr. prior to the posting of that article. It's not like they're going to press 500K of these discs.haineshisway said:
