To work from Bossk's POV, I do agree on the points of preserving the methods. Let's focus not on visible matte lines but invisible ones for a sec. What's more impressive - a perfect matte done by PC, or one by hand? I think that's an easy one. Whenever I watch the Falcon escape the DSII, I'm in awe. Knowing that the tunnel is crafed by hand at remarkable detail, with the fire deftly inserted and augmented, destroying a TIE, with flames engulfing the cockpit setpiece, and the model shooting out of the fire, pulling a trail of flame with absolutly nothing so much as a matte line or garbage matte to spoil the illusion, and knowing that it's all done by hand and camera tricks is far more exciting, and inspiring than knowing that they took the elements and had a PC photoshop it together. Even I could do that. It's just not the same as having a pc do it for you. I'm not knocking digital FX, if done right(usually model aided) they can do great things. There's just a sense of wonder in old school methods. Knowing that the AT-ATs were done by hand for each frame yet remained consistent is far cooler than knowing all the AT-PT's have the gear movement memorized by a pc, and reused in each shot.
I think one factor people forget is feel. It's not just a matter of looking right, but how the scene works and the impression it gives. Take Cloud City. When I watch the OT, the place feels huge. The towers seem so massive that there are plenty of interior hallways. With windows everywhere, they feel thin. It's like they're so small, there's no interior hallways. Plue the new windows are distracting. Instead of concentrating on Lando and Han's conversation, I find myself looking at an elevator. Even when watching the OT, I still tend to look to the wall behind Leia as Lando pulls her to the exit. Why? Becuase their was a busy window there in the SE, and peoples' eyes tend to drift right. So instead of focusing on the action, I'm looking at a distant ship that has nothing to do with anything. That's not enhancing, that's diverting. I won't even get into the fact that the windows revert back to normal in subsequent scenes.
*(1) Cleaning - Replacing models with CGI is equivalent to cleaning up the movie & erasing the squares from around the models. Same scene, but now it looks real, instead of fake.*
Not in the slightest. How can you say that outright redoing a scene is the same as touching it up? As far as realism, that's subjective. I found the CGI BoY far less real than the old. All the ships were oversaturated in color. Each one had the same marking on the wings, and the same rust patterns and R2 units. Compare that to the original in which all ship onscreen are unique, represented by a different model. They aren't the same scene either. Take the start of Red Leader's run. The original had two X-wings enter followed by a shot of a third going in. They are at a distance from the camera. The preceeding shot to this is of Luke turning his head to look out side of the cockpit. In the original, this gives me the impression that we are seeing Luke's POV. Not in the SE however. The new shot has all three X-wings side by side right by the camera. There's no way this is the same shot. The feel is different, hence the scene is different. If they were to reshot the scenes with different actors performing the same lines the same way, would you consider it as the same scene? It's not just the content of the scene that matters, but the elements that make it up.
*(2) Audio - I have no more desire to hear the original "flat" 2-channel stereo than I want to see fake-looking models w/ black squares around them. Go ahead and remix it for 5.1 surround.*
I have no desire to hear a hollow redo of a stereo source. It often sounds miserable. My only complaint on the 1776 DVD was the sound. It was good at the end, but the beginning was very hollow. Having lived with 5.1 most of my life, I can enjoy films that weren't made with it without it. It's another part of the feel. Surround my be cool, but it can change so much. Now, I don't really mind if the original is intact, or if the 5.1 is the same as some films old dolby surround, but if it's not included, it can suck quite a bit. Take the Manga End of Eva release. The director specifically filmed it in stereo as he didn't care for surround. Not only was the US release remixed(which I hear in more upmixed then anything, with the english version sporting new Sound FX) in Dolby EX, and DTS ES, but the provided stereo was a remix using the 6.1 tracks. If that's not a slap in the face, I don't know what is. At least the sub tape sounds good. Even the japanese remaster had the original stereo IIRC, as well as it's own properly remixed 5.1. I've heard a rip of the japanese, it blows the US out of the water despite the loss of a channel.
Does having sounds going everwhere really improve the film? I remember the theater showing ESB SE, where as the x-wing rose from the swamp, you heard tons of dripping water. I found it cool at the time, but it really adds nothing, just more distraction from what I should be focusing on(Yoda's use of the Force).
*(3) Subtraction - I hate subtraction. I don't like that Lucas took away songs that are burned into my skull (yub-nub & the original song in Jabba's Lair). It's like giving candy to a kid, and then taking it away. MEAN, and the part of the SE I don't like.*
Might I ask how that's any different from changing the BoY? After all, stuff is lost to put in the new. This very arguement practically contradicts most of your statements. So it's ok to "improve" SFX, but not ok to change a song for a new one? About the only way this works is if you mean that you hate it when he replaces something you like(Ewok Celebration) with something you don't (Victory Celebration). There's no subtraction here, merely substitution. So how is replacing a song different from replacing FX in any way other than, "I don't like what replaced it". Some will argue that the new song is better, wouldn't that be "fixing" it? I don't like what they replaced the BoY with. Is that any different from you not liking the new song? That just solidifies the idea that the new CGI as an improvment is an opinion. One you are entitled to, sure, but one nonetheless. "I don't like that Lucas took away *things* that are burned into my skull" can pretty much sum up everyones' arguement on why they prefer the SE. Its imprinting, plain and simple.
*(4) Changes - The added creatures wandering through Mos Eisley don't change the flow of the scene. We still have Luke & Obi-Wan asking for directions, same as always. The good stuff is still there.*
Yet it's covered up. The focus is now Mos Eisley, not Luke and Ben. Look at the scene where Ben plays with the troopers mind. At the beginning, we have a dinosuar(on a desert planet none the less!) block our view of them. While thinking, "oh no, how will they pass", you're interrupted with that. Then, while we should be tense with this scene, and amazed by Ben's skill, we instead get a droid that is beeping(!) and darting around the trooper. So now we're looking at a stupid droid instead of being tense. Yeah, the good stuffs there, but it's not the focus. ME went from spooky small town, to bustling metropolis in the kiddle of nowhere. It doesn't just change the flow of the scene, it destroys it.
(5) Adding - The toppling emperor's statue and parties on distant worlds are added scenes. We still see Luk