Wow, the hostility I didn't expect. Its a debate, folks, and I don't shy away from an issue. Its good to discuss these things. I appreciate all points of view.

For the record I believe that the optical composites throughout the Star Wars trilogy are of a very high standard and would probably look perfectly fine in a restoration without any work done on them. Though I'm actually of the opinion that another blockbuster sci fi film of 1977 *should* have won the Oscar for effects, namely Close Encounters of the Third Kind. That's just some seriously refined and usually overlooked effects work - the adulation nromally being reserved for its cheap 'n cheerful companion in the optical effects revolution.

I'm just throwing a different point of view out there and I see no reason for hostility in what is to my mind a very interesting topic.

Didn't intend to offend anyone, I just wanted to see the different opinions and honestly I don't think that any of them are invalid.

I still don't see how there's a difference between a scratch that appeared on the negative the last time someone handled it and one that happened when the film was unloaded from the camera 35 years ago. Or a stray hair that landed up in the optical printer at ILM and is now sitting in the corner of an effects sequence for all to see. I hardly call that a technical limitation that ought to be preserved.

I still cite Blade Runner as an example of a film that I feel was treated right when it was revised in 2007. Its inarguably a better film than it was. Though at least they were good enough to provide the warts-and-all releases for the anal among us. (And that by the way is intended as a joke, in case anyone freaks out)

P.S. I like this forum and community very much and it has rekindled my enthusiasm for Star Wars in a big way.