TV's Frink said:

To be fair, ady doesn't seem pleased...

adywan said:

yeh, i've just seen that interview. I'm not very happy with the example they agve of the "critters". This is something they never asked me about yet use it as an example in the film of how "nit-picky" i am with my edit. If they had bothered asking then i would have given them a logical explanation ( the fact that i had extended that shot so would have had to slow the creatures down, which didn't work and the fact that they look stupid turning around to watch the landspeeder) . It will be interesting to see how they twisted my interview to make me look like some obsessed fan with too much time on his hands. Has anyone seen this movie yet? I'm really starting to wish that i had never been involved with this

It's important to note WHY he only wanted two critters.

Yes, but you are missing the point--the fact that we are willing to subject the films to such scrutiny that leaving two "critters" in is meaningful is itself meaningful. It's not a documentary about Revisted, the point underlined here is that we will re-edit the films and be hyper-specific about specific elements, and that's the real significance of Revisited, that we will spend countless hours to fix things at an almost sub-atomic level.

I don't think he was saying we are bad people, or crazy for doing this. And I'm glad he wasn't putting Adywan on a pedestal of idealism. He's been uncannily neutral about it, because what's more important than whether Adywan's edits improve upon the film is the fact that he is doing them in the first place. It's not about proving to the world that such and such fix is justified for such and such reasons because its inconsistent in a later shot, or whatever. The fact we are doing it in the first place is the real significance, and that's what the filmmaker is drawing attention to, as he should be.