I respect all the arguments for and against but you misunderstood my car analogy. If you're restoring a car, even if you put every single part back that was originally used, you still have to dismantle it first to repair and clean the components.

I certainly don't advocate *any* changes to the content editorial of the film - I advocate disassembly, cleaning, and putting back together. There's a BIG difference. The fact that some matte lines would end up harder to see and in some cases vanish altogether would be a pleasant side effect. You can't limit the use of technology to clean and improve films just because some people used it badly before. One should also consider that there were no computers capable of frame by frame painting out of dirt and scratches and selective color correction not just of whole frames, but *parts* of the frame too, in 1977. Should they be restricted to photochemical repairs (which can only do so much)?

Using a computer on a classic film in any capacity represents doing something to it that could not be done when it was made. George Lucas's revisionism went way too far with changing the films but I argue it is also entirely possible to go way too far the other way. How do you propose things like scratches, specks and the like that appeared as a result of the effects process be handled? You wouldn't always even be able to tell what is a scratch that appeared during the handling of an optical layer and what appeared on the negative as a result of subsequent degradation of the final cut.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with any of these different points of view, I think the debate is a worthy one.