Man, I don't know. I'd like a cleaned up version of the OT without added scenes and whatnot, but in high def the mattes around TIEs and a million other tiny nitpicks will stand out like a sore thumb. A good color correction and cleaning up of the old school effects would really be the way to go in my opinion.
I don't want the original effects messed with, they're fine. I appreciate good movies for what they are no matter when they were made, they are a product of their time and have historical significance. I watch so many films dating back to the 30s that Star Wars is not a problem effects-wise. Just clean up the dirt and scratches, even out the grain and color, and I'm good.
The matte boxes are the only other thing that needs adjusting. They didn't show up on theater screens. They only show on video, because of the super low contrast print stock used for video transfers. So I'd be okay with the boxes being cleaned up since they didn't show originally.
I can see arguments going either way. I mean, let's not forget that the matte boxes appeared on the original theatrical run, and nobody cared. And yeah, sometimes the strings show, but again, who cares? The problem with going on a "clean up the effects" expedition is that there's plenty of temptation to not merely "clean up" but also IMPROVE the effects. Like, ok, we start by removing the matte boxes, but we end up with the ring-o-fire Death Star explosion. Where's it end, ya know?
That said, if ALL that was done was literally things like "erase the string and that's it" changes, I doubt you'd get much pushback even from film history buffs. Still, I think there's value in the "unvarnished" version that was released theatrically. It shows what was capable at the time and, when you compare it to other similar films, how much of a quantum leap forward it was.
I lol'ed. :lol
Sorry, going to disagree. When your audience actually wants multiple versions of your product it's not called a fools errand, it's called a gold mine.
He has a point, though, IF you work from the perspective of "what we have now is good enough." It doesn't make sense to take on additional expense if you're only going to sell to a fraction of the market, however vocal that market may be. It only makes sense financially if you can sell the new product to a wide audience. DVD to Blu-Ray isn't much of a stretch. But Blu Ray to "looks better" Blu Ray is questionable...UNLESS you're somehow "future proofing" the film (or at least ensuring another 2-3 generations of releases by doing the improvements).
Everyone knows disc based media is on the wane, but what we don't know is where things go next. Streaming? A different media style? What will happen with displays? Will 4K displays become widely adopted? Part of what drove the blu-ray adoption was the national switchover to HD TV cable and over-the-air broadcasts. That was MANDATED by law, so people "had" to go out and buy a new TV. For just shy of a decade, TV makers could offer bigger and better and trust that there was still a market for it. But most people have switched over by now, which means they probably won't buy another new TV for at least 10 years. That means you have a lot less drive coming from the display market, which means you have a lot less need from the player market, since we're already at the maximum resolution for displays, which means that -- for the time being -- 1080P is THE standard.
So, right there, you have a question as to how much it's worth to rescan the films and release an "even better" version...particularly one that DOESN'T include the new f/x, or even one that doesn't sold alongside one that does.
Then you've got the Fox distro deal that lasts for another 6 years on Eps. V and VI, which adds more cost to the project. It's not like, say, a remaster of Big Trouble in Little China or something. The rights are complicated, the current scans are at the appropriate resolution....so you have to ask whether it's worth the expenditure. At the moment, yeah, probably not unless Disney has other calculations. It only makes sense if you're planning ahead.
Here is the thing, Lucas said it was always Greedo shooting first, and he didn't film it well enough the first time.
But if you watch star wars (a new hope if you must) every blaster shot that does not hit a person, blows a chunk out of the wall you could fit a bowling bowl into.
So if Greedo was supposed to shoot, and miss (from about four feet away), then where was the squib in the wall?
If the squib didn't go off, why didn't they just shoot the scene again?
Hell, why didn't they just do that when Lucas realised he hadn't got the shot he wanted?
I mean, I'm sorry, but that did not happen in the original versions. Greedo never got off a shot. I actually find it hard to believe that Lucas himself said Greedo DID shoot. I could believe him saying "I always WANTED him to shoot," but that's not the same thing. And yes, technical limitations might've been an issue, since you can't just have a huge explosion go off inches from one of you leads' heads.
But no, I don't think it was ever ACTUALLY shot like that, and I don't think Lucas has ever said "No, Greedo really did shoot. It happened."
Hell, swap Naboo for Alderaan in 1 and 2 and there you go.... 
