Well, I have been collecting movies for over twenty years. I was lucky enough to see many movies in 35mm presentations, but I'll be damned if I can remember what most looked like. The memory plays tricks.
Generally with color, I defer to those who know what they are talking about, because I know next to nothing. If these people (and there are very few of them) do not raise the alarm, then I am more or less satisfied, especially where it comes to the color of older films, a few of which pre-date me by a few months or more.
What is frightening to me is when threads like this pop up, and the groupthink takes over, and suddenly everyone is saying that older video masters are more correct, when really, it's not possible for anyone to know if they are correct. And oftentimes, what looks obviously correct, because things look more "natural", or more how you would see them in reality, is actually incorrect.
What logic tells me, beyond that the people to best decide this are those that have access to the original materials and notes on color timing, is that new technology gives studios the opportunity to present their films with a clarity, depth and color space that was not previously possible on home video before. It's also entirely possible, that certain decisions were made at the time of the production of these films, which obviously could not have anticipated that they would be presented on such a demanding format as Blu-ray. In these situations however, unless a director or some other trusted production figure is around to say what is right, I believe it's only proper to follow the original, intended color, regardless of how unnatural it may look in 2014 on a 1080p display.
These films are after all, a product of their time, not ours.