It does look better and not just because of the improved sharpness of the new frames. Looking at those shots of R2D2 the corrected version seems 'quicker' to appear real. As if when its incorrect the brain has to do an additional milli-second adjustment to interpret the image. This is much easier to see (as it is with the colour stuff) with comparison shots. The thing that strikes me about star wars without having really studied it is often the frame stays still (the camera stays still) and the action moves through it. A stable frame size can only help the illusion that you are looking through a window and then make that window invisible. This stuff is all pretty much on a subliminal level for me. I can only really see it when its correct (i.e. using before and after).

Since reading the linked thread below, my theory is widescreen accords more with what your vision does when it takes in a landscape and then within that frame you can focus in

Whereas 4:3 accords more with what your vision does when it just focuses in on stuff

This is why intimate conversations maybe don't always seem that intimate in widescreen. maybe.

So although Star Wars is composed for widescreen and pan and scan is a corruption of the artistry of the original, we would probably be focusing in to small frames when scanning the widescreen image - its just it feels more natural when we do it than when the frame is imposed from the outside somehow - we can instincively feel whats missing - even when we dont know a widescreen version exists.

http://mubi.com/topics/why-is-it-that-the-best-looking-films-were-shot-in-1331?page=1