Hrm? I'm not arguing; I agree with you. I'm just pointing out how views can differ, which I believe is much healthier than assuming the opposition is stupid. Also, I think semantic arguments on the internet are pretty much the bee's knees.
For instance, you've just changed your wording from "original version" to "released version". It's rather difficult to argue the first released version isn't the version shown in theaters and if that's what you view as "original version", then who's to say otherwise. The phrasing, "original version", however, comes with a different connotation and holds the weight of ownership. Of course, directors don't "own" their movies in the physical sense, but in an artistic sense, they could be easily likened to a painter. If I commission a painting then scribble on it before showing it to anyone else, am I showing the "original version", or is the version I saw the original?
In the painter scenario, I'd say it's hard to argue my version is the original, but then it gets even more complex were I to point out most works of art aren't constructed entirely (or even at all) by the person whose name is on it.
That's the great thing about language. There's so much ambiguity coupled with a hidden connotation stream in constant flux even something as simple as what constitutes an "original" has to be looked at on a case by case basis before we can even fail to come to a consensus.