Yeah, that's not logical at all whatsoever, because this is something all prints had in common because it was on the negative - the original original, not because it was an artefact added in some copying process, like transfer to LD or DVD.

It's a bit weird that it wasn't present on some of the 80s video releases but for example in the GOUT, there are artefacts that suggest that it was simply removed by the DVDR process.

I guess the issue really comes down to the reason for restoring Star Wars to its theatrical form in the first place: is it to make it look as good as it was intended to look to audiences in '77, or is it to mimic the theatre-viewing experience as much as possible?  I always felt it was the former, but if it is the latter, then I guess the burn mark (along with any other visual element introduced to the negatives after the film was completed)  would stay.

Harmy said:

The thing is, even though it may have happened by accident, that accident is a part of the history of the film, since this particular damage was most likely on the original negative, so it's not that easy. It's like 99,9% of dirt in Puggo Grande is specific to that print but these burnmarks are something that all the prints had in common.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I definitely will restore them, I'm just trying to explain why I'm even considering it.

Yeah, I get your point and I dont envy the responsibility of making the choice.  You're essentially trying to answer "What is authoritative?" and... there is no answer.  You're just going to have to pick one and run with it, and some people won't like your choice.

I don't think it fits, overall, with the rest of your project--and I agree it's absolutely a good fit for Puggo.  But everyone has a slightly different idea of what your project is trying to be and ultimately your idea of what it should be should rule the day.

For me, it's simple.  These marks were not captured on film, and thus do not truly represent part of the finished product that the crew worked so hard to achieve.

Cobra Kai said:

For me, it's simple.  These marks were not captured on film, and thus do not truly represent part of the finished product that the crew worked so hard to achieve.

Well sure, but someone also went in with a black marker on a few shots too, to correct some things.  Now I agree with you, but there were changes even after the film was put "in the can" so to speak.  Some, like the black marker stuff, was intentional.  This was not.  I agree only intentional changes to the "in the can" print should be restored, but people never really saw the "in the can" print either.

I think part of the problem is that I wish I could have seen it! ;)

Mackey256 said:

I don't know if lurker votes count but I vote for no burn mark.

I'm a fellow lurker, and also oppose the burn mark (for the justifications already given by other members).

topdawg193 said:

Mackey256 said:

I don't know if lurker votes count but I vote for no burn mark.

I'm a fellow lurker, and also oppose the burn mark (for the justifications already given by other members).

Then I guess we don't count as our votes cancel each other out.

How's this for framing the burn mark choice?

I think everyone agrees that if Star Wars were ever subjected to a proper studio restoration, the burn marks would not be in it.  I think the LACK of a proper studio restoration of these films is a burning issue for everyone here, and the primary reason this project exists in the first place.  And some of us want Harmy's project to be a substitute for that nonexistent proper studio restoration.  But the simple fact is it isn't a studio restoration--it's its own project with its own priorities.

Damn it, I just argued against my preference.  I gotta stop doing that.

none said:

I stand by the decision to include the Humdinger Glitch in the Despecialized Edtion of The Star Wars.  It makes a crucial link between the manipulation of our past and future memories and is there fore and forever a betterment of The Star Warses's.

LOL. Well, that's actually a nice example. I'm restoring the 1977 version of STAR WARS (which is determined by the crawl), so the humdinger glitch shouldn't be there, now, if they made a new 4K scan of the SE and I (for some sadistic reasons) decided to use it to restore the 2004 DVD version of STAR WARS in 4K, would I be restoring the humdinger glitch? Only hells yeah!

This is apparently becoming quite a heated debate.  I stepped outside and saw people picketing in the streets.

Yeah, it's kind of funny that we're having this heated debate about something that covers about 2% of two frames :-)

Cobra Kai said:

For me, it's simple.  These marks were not captured on film, and thus do not truly represent part of the finished product that the crew worked so hard to achieve.

Amen to that!

From my point of view these marks also destroys a bit the "HD feeling" of this project... ;-)

corellian77 said:

This is apparently becoming quite a heated debate.  I stepped outside and saw people picketing in the streets.

Ha!

Who put a ....

in my soup? hehehehe..... :-p

Harmy said:

Yeah, it's kind of funny that we're having this heated debate about something that covers about 2% of two frames :-)

In the "No" camp's defense, though, it is very visible.  I think, for me, I was looking at this project as the unofficial 'official' release of Star Wars... the pristine version of the film which, while not commercially available, met commercial blu-ray standards.  As such, I didn't expect there to be incidental artifacts left in.  If such a thing were present on a commercial blu-ray, I'd be pretty surprised it made it past quality control, and no way would I assume it was intentionally left in.