XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: ted@loft.tnolan.com   
      
   In article ,   
   J. Clarke  wrote:   
   >In article , ted@loft.tnolan.com   
   >says...   
   >>   
   >> In article ,   
   >> J. Clarke  wrote:   
   >> >Just noticed, "The Wizard of Oz" is being shown in several theaters near   
   >> >me, probably near you too if you are in the US.  This is the Judy   
   >> >Garland movie, not a remake.  If you've never seen it on a big screen,   
   >> >you might want to consider it--I saw it last time it was in theaters,   
   >> >about 20 years ago I guess it was, and felt it well worth the price.   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> My understanding is that calling it the Judy Garland version is technicaly   
   >> correct, but that it has been retroconverted into IMAX 3D, so you're not   
   >> talking about the same experience you had growing up..   
   >   
   >Growing up? How old do you think I am?  When I saw it "growing up" it   
   >was on TV.  I was in my 40s when I saw it in a theater for the first   
   >time.   
      
   Yeah, me too.  That's what I meant by "growing up".  In fact, I never saw   
   it all the way through until a restored version hit the theaters some years   
   ago -- I would always run out of the living room when the wicked witch came   
   on.   
      
   >   
   >IMAX 3D I missed.  I'm tempted to give it a go--it's either going to be   
   >totally wonderful or one of the worst horrors ever perpetrated by   
   >Hollywood.   
   >   
      
   I'm not against seeing it, and may do so.  There is some talk on   
   the current films group that too much detail in this version lets   
   you really notice the painted backdrops and cellophane flowers..   
   --   
   ------   
   columbiaclosings.com   
   What's not in Columbia anymore..   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)