ImperialFighter

adywan said:

On the whole light source direction thing...... I guess everyone has forgot the shot of the belly of the Executor where the light source is completely different compared to the following shot? ;) And throughout the whole film the light sources are different between shots. For one example, when the stardestroyer is chasing after the falcon after it leaves Hoth.

True, the shot of the 'Executor's underbelly is lit very differently to how it looks in the wide shot that we immediately cut to afterwards, and that's a good example to mention. (I've shown the enhanced 'Revisited' version at the bottom)

Thankfully, you've been able to nicely match the look of those 2 shots together now...but I just think it'd be a pity if we ended up with a different, even more jarring example of badly matching lighting in it's place, than the underbelly shots were (depending on which option you decide on, of course).

Anyway, here's the actual shot sequence from the 2004 release so everyone can properly study the 'lighting' throughout at a glance, and the link to the latest preview clip (which I've still to go into sometime) is at the bottom to see how things move in motion once again, too -

Light source hits the right-hand side of this 'bridge tower' -

Light source also hits the right-hand side of these ships (*note* - this is very start of shot, before the shadow of the 'Executor' affects the lit half of the nearest one)  -

And this is approx. the end of the above shot, where we now see the 'Executor's shadow on the lit half of the hull -

And this is the start of the next shot as the 'Executor's shadow now begins to envelop the 'bridge tower' seen here, too -

And this is approx. the end of the above shot -

And the 2 halves of the underbelly of the 'Executor' are badly lit at this point -

Whereas the 2 halves of the underbelly are better lit during this shot, in a way which makes it (correctly) seem as if the overall lighting is still coming from the right-hand side of the Stardestroyer beneath it -

And here's adywan's correctly-matching version of the 2 underbelly shots -

And here's the link to the actual clip again - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=415356061905210 

adywan, although I'm gonna be satisfied with *either* way this whole 'Executor' vs 'standard Stardestroyer' issue turns out, I've now come to a conclusion about what my own preference would really be, for what it's worth. :) 

To recap how I've been used to imagining this sequence play out over the years - as just another 'standard' Stardestroyer that was part of the overall 'regrouping fleet', which eventually is the one that gets 'overshadowed'...but was then uncertain once I saw the haphazard colour-timing of the 2004 release...and was even more uncertain when I then came across the older 1997 'Special Edition' screenshots showing an even 'bluer' hue to the 'bridge tower' close-up than the 2004 release -making it *seem* like the 'Executor' after all...at which point it was confirmed to me that you had colour-corrected your AVCHD 'Theatrical' release to definitely show a whiter 'standard' Stardestroyer after all - which resolved things for me thankfully...until you muddied the waters for me all over again, lol.

But I gotta admit that *this* particular discrepancy below which was first highlighted by Niflamol on page 1102 started to niggle me when he brought it up...and I see it's been mentioned by others too -  

Niflamol said:

Hi,

Isn't it odd that the light change direction when we assume that this is the executor?

My only suggestion is to flip the shot so everything is in place.  Executor will have the sun from its left and it will keep its present direction, with the rest of the shots.

When the 'bridge tower' was simply imagined to be part of the 'standard Stardestroyer' that ends up underneath the 'Executor'...then the direction of the 'light source' on the 'close-up' shot nicely matched that of the 'overshadowed' shot of the 'standard Stardestroyer' that immediately followed it.  And all was well.

But as Niflamol said, if this 'bridge tower' is coloured to be part of the 'Executor' instead, then the 'light source' on it will be the *opposite* to how it appears when we come to the 'underbelly' and 'side-on' views of it shortly afterwards.

I seem to remember that you once mentioned that you weren't too fussed about certain 'lighting discrepancies' throughout these movies, because it was not possible/or too time-consuming to fix absolutely every instance of them...and that's absolutely understandable...but I reckon this particular one would really stick out as jarring between the shots now, compared to how the 'light source' worked fine when it was supposedly a 'standard Stardestroyer' close-up.

So my conclusion is this - *if* you decide to definitely keep the shot's movement exactly as it is currently, where the close-up of the 'bridge tower' is moving in a downwards motion from RIGHT to LEFT of the screen...then I'd prefer to see it kept 'white' like a 'standard Stardestroyer' to match the next shot's lighting...

...however, *if* you decide to definitely make that 'bridge tower' a blue colour to confirm it's part of the 'Executor'...then I'd prefer to see the shot (and it's motion) 'flipped' as Niflamol and others suggested...even if it means the 'gathering fleet' above it are moving the opposite way to how we're used to seeing things too. 

(Yes, the detailing on the back of the 'bridge tower' will be an exact reversal of the way it currently is, if you go with this choice...but I don't know of any footage or behind-the-scenes miniature shots that would contradict this anyway, so it would work fine...and I think I'd rather see things 'flipped' in this shot if you go with this option, rather than be distracted every time by the particularly obvious 'lighting' contradiction between the shots that this would throw up otherwise)

* alternatively * - While drafting this up, I've just read Ronster's suggestion of 'flipping' all the various shots that follow the current motion of the original 'fleet reqrouping'/'bridge tower' shot...which is certainly an option to maintain the 'light source' continuity if you decide on that.  But I reckon that's a bit much to be honest, and would prefer to *only* 'flip' the first shot, if you choose to make the 'bridge tower' blue.

Either way, I'm certainly gonna be interested in what your final decision will be on this one. :)

Bingowings said:

If Ady hadn't drawn our attention to it before hand i doubt if there would be anything like this sort debate after the release.

 I'd like to believe that...but somehow I don't. ;)

(and the first one to post 'I find your lack of faith disturbing' is a banana)

...As adywan sat at his workstation feverishly contemplating a comparison clip of the 'Executor'/'regular Stardestroyer' conundrum over and over again...he suddenly thought "Screw it!  I'm just gonna leave the Blu-ray colours *exactly* as they are for the ungrateful sods..."

Darth Stewie said:

Perhaps you should poll everyone to see which way it should go since the opinions are fairly split on this one.

I'd be very interested in the results of a straw poll from those of us here with a strong preference...and fully look forward to adywan sticking up 2 fingers to the result if it doesn't jive with whatever way he decides to go, even if strongly outnumbered.  As he should.

After a little investigating, I've finally made some time to go into detail on my own take on this whole 'Executor' thing now adywan, so here goes -

While disappointed with their lack of care and attention in many areas, I ended up abandoning my old videotape versions when the long-awaited 'special edition' DVD versions appeared in 2004...and it seems that I got so used to seeing the hateful, new 'blue-tinged' colour-timing over and over again in the years afterwards, that I eventually ended up completely uncertain about what was what concerning that particular 'tower' close-up... 

But while it looked slightly more on the 'blue' side compared to some of the subsequent SD shots just afterwards, it wasn't quite as strong a 'blue' colouration as the eventual 'underside' reveal of the 'Executor'...and so I just carried on thinking that the 'tower' close-up was really just a 'standard' Stardestroyer in the overall 'gathering/regrouping fleet'...whose huge scale was then eventually seen to be 'shadowed' and dwarfed by the even bigger scale of the 'Executor' ship afterwards. 

And as others have firmly suggested, that progression of events can make for an excellent 'cinematic'/'editing' flow to the sequence.  And for years, I was happy to view it in the same way too...until I eventually ended up coming across a link to this 'technical journals' page at Theforce.net site - http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#introduction , which had several screenshots of the 'tower' in question, such as this...

The colouration on this really muddied the waters for me at the time (2009!), and I realised it certainly wasn't a shot from the 'special edition' DVD or faded GOUT release, so I asked how *you'd* interpreted this particular 'tower' colouring...and here's my exact post with what I asked...  - http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/STAR-WARS-EP-V-REVISITED-EDITION-ADYWAN-BATTLE-OF-HOTH-CLIP-NOW-AVAILABLE/post/386181/#TopicPost386181

...and the answer I got shown afterwards showed this...

...so that *absolutely* cliched it once and for all for me these last 4 years...it was definitely the 'standard' Stardestroyer that would be eventually 'shadowed' by the 'Executor', after all! :)

Or so I thought until now, lol. 

To sum up, I can easily see a case for this 'tower' close-up as being the *actual* first glimpse of the 'Executor's' massive size...just as I can equally see how the sequence also works well if it seems that we see the 'Executor's' underbelly section first.  So whether you end up wanting to make it 'blue' or 'grey', I'm gonna be equally happy with the outcome thanks to all your terrific enhancements to the sequence.

Just don't make it 'purple', thanks. :)

FVDnz said:

All you people doubting that it's not the Executor, you've all got to be kidding me?!  Why the hell would that be a flyover shot obscuring all those other other SD's with another SD?!  I've known that was the Executor from the first time I ever saw that scene.  Like others have said, this bickering is pointless!!

I don't think they are bickering, so much as pointing out how it's looked to them due to the colouring issues.  As L8wrtr and others have described, the blue underside of the 'Executor' seems to also work very well as the first reveal of it's immense size, if you imagine the 'big tower' to be merely that of one of the gathering fleet SDs to begin with.

FVDnz said:

Every time I look at the Executor from that angle it just doesn't look right.  It's like you're looking under the SSD or something.

Meant to say FVDnz, that you *are* looking under the SSD in that shot you mentioned, as our viewpoint is from a far lower position as we look up at it and the other SDs nearby.

RONSTER said:

Look at the scene where the falcon is clamped on to the back of a normal star destroyer bridge if you still think it is a normal star destroyer...

I am sure you will notice the executor bridge is much wider and is the one in the first shot... It is not a replica of a SD bridge

That is from my memory without looking

Ronster, due to incorrect 'scaling' issues, that SD shot you mention either shows a tiny 'tower' or an extremely large 'Falcon'...depending on your point of view.  So it doesn't really doesn't help in this case.  I actually asked if adywan was leaving the 'Falcon' size as it was, many moons ago, but I don't think he gave an answer at the time.  Not that I recall, anyway.  There are unfortunate scaling issues throughout the OT anyway, and that particular 'Falcon' shot might just have to remain as it is.

The 'Executor' and standard SD 'tower' designs and scales were dissected here long ago, and the 'bridge' detailing on the front of the 'towers' was suggested as being the main factor to take into consideration where scales are concerned - which is why the 'hiding Falcon' is the wrong size, for instance.  

Anyway, here's a link to a resource with a heap of info./photos for anyone that wants to gorge themselves on all that if they missed it all before.  (*note* - I'm not saying that every fact here is 100% accurate, though) - www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#introduction  

adywan said:

So i shouldn't return it to it's original colouring because everyone thinks it should be a different colour? Am i on the right site? Have i slipped into a mirror universe? lol

Heh, I hope to show shortly how I too ended up believing this past few years that the 'tower' close-up belonged to the Stardestroyer that eventually gets 'shadowed', after originally suspecting it was *perhaps* meant to be the 'Executor' tower after all...  And it was actually partly your fault Ady! ;)

Personally, I'm okay with this 'restoration' even though I've been used to seeing it in a very different way for long enough.

brimforge said:

But aside from coloring issues, I have got two "continuity errors", maybe they are already "repaired" or as Adywan stated:

"Now, in the past, there was mention (not sure if it was here) about how the ships are placed in the opening shot compared to when we see them later and that it is a continuity error. Well, it isn't ."

 

So please clear these for me:

the first is the group of SD which are meeting/ "flying under" the Executor

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y480/brimforge/fanedits/SSD_zps0f4d96d4.jpg

 

ok, one is seen (maybe it should be darker?) but what about the other two - mabye one is "behind" the SSD, but the other should be also seen to the right side

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y480/brimforge/fanedits/executor_zpsb289cf2d.jpg

 

the other thing that bugs me, and I only caught it because I searched for the other "bug", is the scene where Vader is looking out the window:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y480/brimforge/fanedits/Vader_zpscfc38e31.jpg

 

you nicely mirrored part of that shot, but the light/reflection on Vader's helmet isn't on the right side ...

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y480/brimforge/fanedits/bridge_zpsbe955a54.jpg

Oh hell,...due to the recent clip and various issues brought up over the past day or two, I suddenly have a *heap* of things I want to bring up/ask about/and need to show screenshots for again...dammit, LOL.

Okay brimforge, you first.  As far as your first query above goes, I don't recall seeing that particular comparison shot of the 'Executor'/SDs that you've shown in your second link down...but that's not how the current version looks like. 

Here's the link to the clip again - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=415356061905210 , and you can see how things actually look now at 1min. 04secs. into it.  Hope that clears things up a little for you. 

And as far as your other point goes, I've checked my 'workprint' in motion to see how the 'reversed' Vader/bridge shot works in conjunction with the 'close-up' of Vaders helmet just beforehand...and it works absolutely fine where the 'reflections' are concerned.  You'll just have to take my word on that.  Hope that reassures you a little. 

adywan said:

PLOTTING THE SCALE FOR THE HOTH TRANSPORT HANGAR MINIATURE:

Using foam board, i have cut out some rough plates so i can determine what the final scale for the miniature will be. I have used a 1/72 Fine Molds X-wing to determine the scale. The pepsi can is there to give you an idea of the size of this thing...

It's to replace the background in this shot, in case anyone is not sure which one i'm talking about....

adywan said:

Texturing is now complete on the hangar miniature.  Next to paint it and add all the extra mechanical and pipe details

adywan said:

I will be using the fine molds 1/72 models to populate it as it is built to 1/72 scale.  I will have to digitally insert the transports using available shots of the original models (would love to have used the resin kit of the Transports available on ebay, but i just couldn't afford the £400+ price tag).  All  the boxes, pipes etc will be built physically at 1/72 and placed in the set, including all the lights etc.  Then the troops and pilots that the 2nd unit filmed will be inserted.  I have a smoke machine that will be used to add a fine layer of smoke in the hangar, then digitally insert the jets of stream seen in the full scale version (falcon hangar)

doubleofive said:

I love love love that we're using actual models.

Agreed!

I didn't have enough time to comment when all this was brought up recently, but here's a few thoughts now - while the various new CGI'd elements are turning out to be excellent on this, it's great to know that some enhancements are also being achieved with miniature work.  

As much as I used to like the original matte in the past, this new shot of the rebel hangar is one I'm particularly looking forward to seeing eventually...not just for the additional filmed rebel activity in the background, but because of the better-scaled, replacement model work being done.  Judging by the amount of work involved in putting it together, I reckon this shot will potentially end up being one of the best-looking changes for everyone that's been used to the original version over the years.

Anyway, for the benefit of anyone here that's not been following the recent facebook updates, I'd just like to repeat a couple of additional, interesting little snippets on this shot's progress from over there -

adywan commented on the above shot saying:  It's a bit of a nightmare making everything at 1/72 scale.  This shows you how small the floor lighting is.

Also:  That's an individual piece i made from styrene sheeting.  I need to do some finishing work on it and then i will be making a silicone mould so i can mass produce the amount that i need.  Each one will be individually lit also.

Also:  The set is approx 6ft width x 7ft length x 2ft high.  It's as big as i could possibly make it without running out of space.  1/72 scale seemed to work pretty well.

And in response to a FB follower who asked what he was going to use for the Transport, he replied:  I have no idea what I'm going to use for the transport.  The person who was going to lend me that same 1/44 transport decided yesterday that he no longer wanted to help out, so I'm a bit stuck.  May have to resort to using modified pictures of the original model if worse comes to the worse.  I would have to photograph the model seperately anyway because of the scale, and then add it into the composition.

...and here's a little clip of how good the costumes of the rebels/pilots will look when inserted into the shot eventually...although I'm guessing that this is not actual footage that will be seen. ;) -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp_MafRLZeA

It's a real pity that the loan of the detailed 1/44 scale resin Transport was not forthcoming after all.  I'm curious if anyone else stepped up on that front since your comments adywan?

Many thanks darth_ender, and I'll get to those shortly.

Asteroid-Man said:

...soooooooo was anything done to fix the continuity mistake in terms cutting in cave? You know how Luke swipes 10-meters away from the Wampa and the arm falls into frame? 

Every time I ask this question, people go off on a tangent about icicles and music and things that don't need to be changed. 

I'm merely asking if this was even addressed by ady.

I don't know, but I don't recall it ever being something that adywan mentioned as bothering him in the scene.

It's interesting that yourself and DominicCobb seem to see this shot as looking very wrong, as it's never been something that stood out to me over the years personally.  So I had another look at it in motion after your comments, and here's what I reckon -

The positioning still works fine enough for me I'd have to say - I don't see Luke as being a huge distance away from the Wampa at the point where he swipes his lightsaber...because the creature is meant to be very big compared to him anyway, and the camera seems to be close to the Wampa's rear view on top of this, perhaps giving you the impression that Luke is further in the distance than he really is, during the shot.  But I just see Luke looking small compared to the Wampa, rather than being too far away from it in the distance.

In addition, the Wampa is still rushing towards Luke at the moment we cut to where he swipes at it, and at that point the main body of the Wampa totally obscures a lot of the swiping lightsaber anyway, so we can't see how close to Luke it's outstretched right arm was at this point.  But while that overall shot works fine for me still, I'm really looking forward to seeing adywan's new Wampa look to replace the dodgy 'lunging' shot design before it.

SilverWook said:

Your friendly neighborhood moderator kindly suggests: Let's keep politics out of this thread. Okay?

And let's hope it's kept to the minimum in the next trilogy too!...

It's been a little surreal to see the fuss today on our (UK) tv news channels concerning this latest development.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22491025

Pity the accompanying clips of the OT's current colouration looked awful compared to adywan's 'revisited' work though. :P

Ady totally needs to take the short trip down the road next year to meet Chewie and the gang, and keep J.J. right.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Wow my eyeballs have just melted!

Any kind of eta on this?

'When it's ready' (trademarked) - in before any of the usual suspects.  ;)

Sometime this year is the target is all we know at the moment Ryan.

...and with you too adywan, always.

Thanks for this latest enbiggable pic to keep us going, as I was really hoping you'd show us a little something today.  As usual, you didn't disappoint.  :)

This initial glimpse of 'Cloud City' in the distance as the Falcon and cloud cars approach it, and the sun's glare appears, was always one of my favourite 'beauty shots' in the original...and I was a little uncertain when I knew you were gonna be altering it.  I needn't have worried, as your new revamp looks glorious.  Fabulous work as always.

I'm looking forward to seeing that hint of a 'lens flare' in motion eventually.

Great update on your wonderfully ambitious plans for those remaining HD versions, adywan!  (And I'm already delighted about a little sfx enhancement I didn't know you were planning, which you mentioned during your recent comments on FB.  It's definately something I *really* hoped to see!)

I'm pleased to see that if things get a little bogged down on any specific future shots for any reason, then giving yourself the option of jumping back-and-forth between the various instalments *simultaneously* will certainly help to keep things moving on with the project overall, as well as keeping things varied for you.

But I'm now interested to know if you intend to start *simultaneous*, seperate, individual 'Revisited' threads for each of these instalments when the time comes...as I definately reckon any potential ideas/and thoughts/and screenshots/(and 'funnies') from everyone will be far easier for you (and us) to follow/and add to/and respond to, if seperate 'update/suggestion' threads such as this one are used.

Great to see the awesome start of the Hoth battle with the new additions the other day.  The new backgrounds and overall re-colouring looks fantastic.

I was really looking forward to seeing how the views of the approaching AT-ATs seen through Luke's speeder windshield would turn out, and they are fabulous.  And the snowspeeder display graphics have turned out excellent too.

There's been some interesting comments/ideas here recently, about which I can't say anything - except to confirm that there are many other outstanding shots in the rest of the battle for everyone to look forward to also! :)

adywan, a little thing of my own I'd like to mention concerns the tremendous new 'binocular' shot - the nearer, close-up view of the AT-AT cockpit/and drivers is wonderful of course, and I agree that the revised version is a definate subtle improvement with the brief 'blurred focusing' moments included now.  

However, I always liked the initial way that the AT-AT's foot comes down with a satisfying 'stomp'-like movement in the original, for it's initial reveal. 

I think part of the 'shock-of-the-new' for me concerning the new footage is to do with the fact that the AT-AT'S foot seen in the new version is nearly in contact with the ground already, compared to the way we initially saw in the original version, which seemed to be coming down from a slightly higher, more satisfying angle before it hits the ground (seen at 00.33 in the 'comparison' video here) - http://vimeo.com/61219064

For a quick comparison, here's how the first frame in the new version looks (ignore the 'Temp Video' lettering everyone) -

and here's the first frame of the original foot coming down from a slightly higher, different angle to begin with -

It's just a momentary,subtle thing before the camera-view pans upwards from the foot, but I don't feel the new version is quite as satisfying at this initial point.  No biggie however, but I just wanted to bring that up.

Another little thing that is I wanted to mention is that the 'binocular' view seems suddenly very...blue-ish overall...compared to the overall whiter look of shots that come before and after it.  So the AT-AT/AT-ST colouring seems rather blue-hued due to this 'tinted' look.  I know that the original shot is blue-ish too, but somehow it didn't seem such an issue due to the footage being so 'unfocused' throughout anyway.  And I also know that the earlier shot through Luke's 'binoculars' looked quite blue-ish too, and if that's the actual shade of blue 'tinting' effect you want to stick with, then great.  On the other hand, I wonder if things *might* look even more effective on both these 'binocular' shots if the blue-ish 'tint' is toned down a little bit?  I don't mean towards a paler shade of blue, I mean a little more towards a whiter/greyer - looking hue overall, to tie-in with the before and after shots slightly more?  Just a thought.

Either way, should a brief moment of 'blurred focusing' happen at the *very start* of the 'binocular' shot when we first see the AT-AT's foot I wonder?  Would that make the shot even more effective, before it quickly focuses into total clarity or not?  Just another thought.

By the way, the 'binocular' shot was originally our first real reveal of the AT-AT's shape, but now your excellent new *earlier* shot shows them a lot more prominently in the distance than the dark 'specks' in the original.  But I wonder if the size of them should still be made slightly smaller overall, or not?  Is the mountain range behind them looking big enough compared to them in this first reveal shot now?, or should the mountains look bigger compared to the AT-ATs/AT-STs at this point still?  I'm not sure, but the shot still looks great even if they're kept at their current new scale in the distance. 

Lastly, I love the look of Mithrandir's recent 'mock-up'.  I reckon that seeing a hint of mountain background and cloud/sky really helps improve the look of the AT-AT head miniature.  I also quite liked his notion of a hint of 'reflective sheen' in that particular shot as it moves slightly, but either way, I'd definately like to the background altered along those kind of lines, if you think it warrants changing it a little.

Amazing progress on this whole project, regardless.

''Woo Hoo!!'' indeed. 

I didn't think the AT-STs would be revealed until the edit's release (or until a final trailer perhaps), but I'm glad to see this clip quickly helped to raise the additional donations required at the moment.

I'll add a few thoughts on a couple of things shown so far when I've more time tomorrow, but some of the additional things to the workprint are looking terrific.

I'm rooting for Kenny Baker to return in his 'tin can' role too.  Hell, he's only 78 after all.

Not what I expected, but I'll wait and see what he turns out.  All I know is that there were certainly a few moments I'd prefer to see *edited out* of J.J.'s initial 'Trek' reboot, which makes me a little wary of what he'll do with this.

But mainly, I'd like John Williams back to score this final 'trilogy of treatments' from GL, to round off the '9 picture saga' consistently. 

After that, Disney and various other directors/writers can then go nuts with any future 'Star Wars'-related 'spin-offs' or instalments if they wish, as far as I'm concerned. 

(I guess a lot of Trek sites are currently twitchy about this news too, lol.)

Welcome aboard sircheeks.

I suggest you have a good read of the 'rules/guidelines' here and over at fanedit.org, and check your PM's for a message from me. :)

Indeed.  Because there are *so many* differing ways in which the 3 prequels (and even ROTJ) can be recut and restructured, it will be really interesting to see what adywan's own preference is with them all eventually.  And especially fascinating to see whatever additional 'effects' enhancements he chooses to add anywhere too. 

And of course, they will generate a whole new slew of conflicting views on their specific threads for us all to munch through someday... :)

Early previews of the behind-the-scenes stuff?  Fantastic!

Agreed Snaketibe. 'Flipped' shots have always been a peeve of mine too, during re-watches, and it's good to know that certain ones have been addressed in this edit. 

'ESB' is littered with quite a few, and while re-'flipping' certain ones might be awkward-looking from a directional viewpoint, I'd certainly be pleased to see the particular ones you've mention restored the 'correct' way round. 

As far as I'm aware, every one of the various 'flipped' shots during the movie have been brought up previously by someone or other during this epic thread, and here's my own comments (see my 4th post down in the linked page) from way back when, concerning the ones you've brought up -  http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/STAR-WARS-EP-V-REVISITED-EDITION-ADYWAN-UPDATED-CHANGES-LIST-NOW-AVAILABLE/topic/9060/page/613/ 

(PM sent by the way, adywan)

Happy New Year to adywan and everyone else on these forums, from here in the Highlands.  We've got a big year ahead to look forward to on the ESB:R front. :) 

Slange!

Tyrphanax said:

I really hope they don't get really stupid titles.

 ^ This. I wonder if George already had titles in mind for his latest 'treatments'?

To be on the safe side I'd prefer if they are simply called this eventually...

Star Wars Episode VII

Star Wars Episode VIII

Star Wars Episode IX

(Star Wars Episode VII: Sith Happens)