From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <4ced2a40$0$1645$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,   
    sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:   
      
   > : > In a quality that obfuscates the actual technical achievements.   
   > : Much like Bluray.   
   >   
   > One clearly obfuscates considerably more than the other.   
      
   Only because the version of the latter has been massively remastered.   
   I'm sure you have seen the quality of the masters as they looked back   
   in 1996.   
      
   > : > And, they are unlikely to be released again, at least under George's   
   > watch.   
   > : Much like those silent movies...   
   >   
   > And as I said before, I consider both to be unfortunate.   
      
   It's just that they have no usenet group? :)   
      
   I'm not sure why you focus on Star Wars here, there are literally tens   
   of thousands of artistic works that will never be released again, or   
   seen in their original form.   
      
   Like Mona Lisa, the last supper, Nosferatu. On and on and on.   
      
   > : > plus, he was not even in the original release.  He was wisely   
   > : > edited out... an example of Academy award winning editing being   
   > : > undone.   
   > : False logic. The Best Film Editing award was not awarded as a result   
   > : of that scene being edited out.   
   >   
   > It certainly wasn't awarded for the scene being edited in.   
      
   Whatever that has to do with the subject at hand...   
      
   > : > He would probably claim that the choice of making the original disks   
   > : > non-anamorphic was an "artistic decision".   
   > : No, he has openly claimed that it was a cost issues, as you know.   
   >   
   > It costs money to check the "anamorphic" box in the encoder?   
      
   It costs money to release the original trilogy in a format that is   
   described in better terms than "decent/watchable", yes.   
      
   > : I know one way to make a terrible artistic decision; to release a copy   
   > : from an old outdated master that would be "decent/watchable" at best.   
   >   
   > Your sarcasm meter must have been turned off.  Of course it would be   
   > preferable to release it properly.  I find it hard to believe that it   
   > is a cost issue, or an artistic decision.  He simply wants it forgotten,   
   > after all the VHS copies deteriorate.  That he has made clear.   
      
   Where has he made that clear? Do you have some substantiation for this   
   statement?   
      
   Plus, the original versions do exist on DVD, so I have no idea why   
   you're bringing up VHS here. A letterboxed DVD version is still better   
   than the VHS version.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)