Originally Posted by Hughmc
Is it still considered director's intent if he puts in or leaves a million dollar, one of a kind shot the way it looks, even when he had no intention of it looking that way?
That's why "director's intent" is not really a useful standard.
But "accuracy" is. Through a combination of empirical judgements, inferences from other, similar material, statements by people involved in production/restoration, and knowledge of the field, I believe it's possible to make a fair judgement that a BD of a theatrical film looks the way it actually looked, or would actually look, in its intended context,
which is a movie theater.
The visible presence of digital processing (EE and DNR most commonly) on a filmed source is the obvious example of something NOT looking like it would when projected.
I also want to add that it's important to try to be objective when making value judgements. And to understand that everything needs to be judged on its own merits.
Take "Blade Runner," for example. On the one hand, the "definitive" version has a lot of digital manipulation, including insertion/deletion of actual images. This version of the movie, although it had a limited theatrical run, is clearly intended primarily as a product for the home video market. So how do we judge it: as compared to the original theatrical film, show in theaters? Or as compared to made-for-video productions? Clearly, IMO, it has to simply be judged on its own merits.
I think the purpose of this thread should simply be to give potential buyers a sense of which discs come closest to accurately recreating the experience of seeing the work in its original context. Not whether it looks "good" or "bad," but whether such accuracy was successfully achieved or not.