Yeah, it's really sad and very sloppy on an otherwise excellent book, especially when they had time to go over these things when the book was postponed several times. You would think someone should have gone through this more carefully when the same thing happened in the first book, but they're probably not even aware of it. And most regular folks will not even notice the differences or even care, but in a way that's why revisionism is possible in the first place.

It's nothing major, far from it but when you don't have any access to experience the original films properly, it's hard to not be bothered by it when you even can't escape the 1997/2004 alterations in these books that are supposed to be the definitive true documents of the making of the original films. It's not very likely, but I do hope they fix these minor flaws in any future reprints.

Zombie, I just wanted to point out one minor thing in your "Can't even get the SE right" article. The screen-caps you have in example 2) Erased Starfields have a recomped starfield in the SE shot, I pointed this out in doubleofive's thread on page 1 http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Complete-Comparison-of-Special-Edition-Visual-Changes/topic/11927/ You can see that the starfield doesn't match up with the original shot if you look close enough, it's more noticeable in the '97SE. So I would recommend using another starfield shot for that particular demonstration.