Ever so often we get a post like this I can understand it on a forum based around getting the original versions of the these movies but the two go hand in hand.

There is the original version which should be released, restored and presented in the best available format and then there is the SE.

The SE is a different entity with it's own set of mission statements.

All of which missed the mark.

The matte was already fiddled with in 1997 and in 2004 but almost everything about it doesn't work.

So I don't see a problem with trying to use what ever means possible to fix the shot in the SE.

Does it make for a better film?

Possibly not better than the film was back in 1980, it's a largely subjective thing some people just don't like anything that looks remotely like it was filmed in a different decade from the one they are viewing it in (I can never get my head around that personally) but it could contribute to a better film than the SE released in 1997 if you aren't taken out of the moment when a CGI cityscape jumps to a static matte with out of scale models and questionable perspective.

If Ady or any of the editors who contribute to these boards were trying to prevent the 1997 or 2004 versions from being available to buy a comparison with Lucas would have some validity but it's not the case here.