Star Wars (SE) shown at Piedmont Park (Atlanta)

So do you get the 1997 version of the film or the 2004 version?

If its a print it will be the 1997 version.

These days, for these sort of community events showing older movies, they just project a video (literally, a DVD). Doesn't necessarily mean that's what this is, but it's possible too.

Toy Story 3 was theatrically released in 35mm.

The 2004 SE never was. It's been shown at various events, but always from a digital projection. Because it was 100% digitally made and intended for a video market.

Well, for the Academy screening it is possible that they made a special print for that occassion--or better yet, just showed the 1997 SE print. But it may very well have been a digital projection, as it was at Celebration and other events. A community park screening wouldn't have a print though, it's likely that they don't even have the ability or resources to have a 35mm system set up there in the first place.

Dude, download the Audio Description version (UK or US) and bring a boom box and crank it from the back of the theater!!!!!!

If it's the 1997 version try and cover the projection booth with a cyan gel to preserve Lucas's original vision (see how that goes down).

CS: Not to my knowledge. This isn't official, but my impression is that SW is not allowed to be screened unless directly authorized by LFL, and that is only granted to exceptional circumstanes (Academy, AFI, etc.). It's all very Stalinist. You have to make a request to the central committe and they review the case, send you the print or file and then you have to return it within a set period. All circulating prints were recalled (and, supposedly, destroyed) prior to the SE. Since 2004, my impression was that only the 2004 SE has been screened. I don't recall any special screenings between 1997-2003, but I could be ignorant.

Of course, there are illegal and semi-legal prints that get screened, on a semi-private basis. Dale Pollock has a 70mm print of Star Wars, which I think he screens for students at USC once a year. Probably he was given the print when writing Skywalking (as there was no SW home video in the 1980-82 period in which he wrote it), and just kept it all these years.

It's weird, all 3 Indy movies are screened all over the place all the time and the world hasn't ended. Can't figure out GLs reasoning for Star Wars showings to be so tightly controlled. And I guess the 1997 prints are harder to come by than the 77. (it's probably worth remembering and envying this:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=141011

Yeah, the Bloor cinema here in Toronto screens the Indy trilogy almost every year. I've seen the original Indy trilogy three times in cinemas now, which is saying a lot since I was born in 1984 and thus could never see them in their initial run. All three times have been experiences I cherish, and the audiences are full of old and young people and it's just a great time. I can't understand Lucas when it comes to Star Wars. He's gotten so wrapped up in his world that he's lost the ability to step outside of it and be a normal person.

The DVD might be a tiny bit red-biased in the skintones but the DVDs all look more or less like the 35mm prints. That's just a general impression, if you scrutinized side-by-side screencaps no doubt you would find differences, but in general it looks the same. The first two films have very vivid saturation and really deep blacks with a nice contrast and warm hues and that's replicated nicely on the DVDs; the third film is a bit brighter and less vivid, as is the DVD IMO.

Indiana Jones is owned by Paramount, no wonder. :p

My memory of TOD is the strongest since that's my favourite (yeah, sue me), and I can tell you that film looks exactly the same as the DVD, at least in general terms, so as far as I am concerned the disks look the way they are supposed to, more or less. There is probably less grain than there should be because of Lowry, but only a bit (the prints I've seen, especially the first two films, have been a bit dirty because of their age...which adds its own charm, I guess).

It's a drag because it's not like the 70mm prints that are out there are going to get better with age (and GL has created a situation where only a privileged few can screen it privately, how douchey is that?) And like the guy who saw one in 2008 said, it's an amazing way to see it, better looking than the 1997 version. (I remember thinking the 1997 looked great in theaters, but still not as good as the 70mm. And it wasn't like I was going by hazy, ancient memories, I saw the latter around 1990).

I saw a print of Raiders three years ago at an art theatre.  It was old and faded, but the essential look of the film came through clearly.  For the most part, the dvd version replicates the proper appearance pretty closely, though like Zombie84 said, it does emphasise the red side of things more.  Most of the time it's not an issue, but the bar fight scene in Nepal seems to have a large amount of red added to the lighting that was not on the film print.  I recently saw the THX 'Wow' demo and the shots from the bar scene look the way I remember them from the print, so there was definitely a change to the colour scheme of that scene for the dvd.

I am seriously jealous of Steve Hoffman for being able to see a 70mm Star Wars print just a couple years ago.  I wonder who owns it and how they've been able to hold on to it all this time.