Here's my two cents:
I had never seen Patton at all before getting the blu ray version, so I can't comment on how it's supposed to look. But watching the blu ray, you cannot see any fine details, such as facial pores. In other movies that I've watched, I've been wowed by the fact that there's enough detail in the picture to be able to see that kind of stuff.
Did I think Patton looked good? Yes, it looks good for an almost 40 yr. old movie, but it doesn't look as good as some of the older movies that have been released.
I am all for keeping the director's intent. The director is the one who decides what a film is supposed to look like through the use of different lighting, lenses, film stocks, etc., and to change it is to severely alter what the director wanted. It'd be like painting a bigger smile on the Mona Lisa just because more people would go to see it.
Because people around here are more "picky", they notice things that are wrong that should be corrected or at least accounted for. If no one around here spoke up, would we have gotten a new version of The Fifth Element or the corrected Pirates Of The Carribean? Probably not.
And whereas some people may say that they're elitist and snobby, at worst I'd say they're overzealous, only because they want the most accurate depiction of what the film really is, not because they like to put people down or seem smarter, but because they care so deeply for films and their proper preservations.