Since this will be a 2D transfer, it would have made more sense to leave it at 2.40:1 and save 1.78:1 for the 3D release. But it's Cameron's film and who am I to disagree... I have already pre-ordered the blu-ray since I have no use for a 3D version anyway. If I like the film and the extras look interesting, I might double-dip later though. Wouldn't be the first, or last, time... (esp. not with Cameron!) 

Quoting TomGaines:

Quote:
Isn't the second release in November an extended cut? This is what I have read here (German).
Would be something else to consider.

One more version to buy. 

I think I heard Cameron defend the AR choice, basically saying that the film was filmed in 1.78:1 (or similar) and then matted for the 2.35:1. Hence, the Blu-ray/DVD will actually show more image then the 2D release.

What I am also trying to say is, even a 2D release later on might still not have a 2.35:1 AR.

EDIT:
Oops, seems I was wrong. In the article at bluray.com he actually states that he prefers 1.78:1 for 3D (for added height), but in 2D the wider scope ratio has his preference. So, I guess you can indeed call this upcoming 2D release having a faulty AR!

Knowing that Cameron loves to shoot most if not all his latter films in Super35  lead me to this article that states:
Theoretically, 2.39:1 release prints made from Super 35 should have slightly lower technical quality than films produced directly in the anamorphic format. Because part of the Super 35 image is thrown away when printing to this format, films originated with anamorphic lenses use a larger negative area. Super 35 has continually been popular with television shows, due to the lack of a need for a final release print; with the advent of widescreen television sets, 3-perf Super 35  with a native 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio  is now also being used for widescreen television shows.

so it looks like to me I'd perfer the 1:78 print , which looked to me in the theatres pretty evenly matched and proportioned well on screen ( in 3D) .

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
In my opinion, 3-D isn't what made it a great movie.  3-D is what made it a must see in theaters.  I would have enjoyed it regardless, the 3-D just made it more enjoyable.

IMHO:

The 3D was the only thing that gave that movie more than average worth. The story has been told many times one way or another and the acting wasn't that good either.

I've watched it in 3D, it was OK, but I doubt I'll ever watch this movie again...

For the most part, I agree with this review:

(Warning: strong language)

May I say I will not be buying any version 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
The story has been told many times one way or another...

If this was what I based my viewing enjoyment on, I would never watch another film as this can be said for quite a few of them. 

But there still is good re-telling and bad re-telling the same story.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
But there still is good re-telling and bad re-telling the same story.

True enough, but I have a soft spot for Sci-Fi/Fantasy so this re-telling was rather enjoyable for me.  As they say, different strokes.