For the most part, I actually liked the old ones best. The dusty look adds realism, the new ones are "too perfect".

Compared to the resources available at the time, the old ones beat the new ones by fifteen parsecs. :-D

nice post

Chris Ram, you got that right!

fifteen parsecs isn't much ^^ lol thats still a lot, but i won't double that, or third, as the case is, anyway i find it interesting but too long, it bored me a bit

I too have to agree with Chris Ram.

is economy...

i just saw 2 whole movies...

Hey star wars in freeze frame.

Alkhoren,

and what a shame that someone held a gun to your head, forcing you to look at every pic.

...

overall there's about 4-5 shots where the new look is better. otherwise, the rest of the pics just show how terribly neurotic and insecure george lucas became over time.

it still blows my mind how a guy who made two excellent movies in 1973 and 1977 could go on to make nothing but mediocre, or downright-awful movies after that, yet still become a multi-billionaire legend and highly influential force.

perhaps this is related to the fact that theaters nowadays show almost nothing but (hollywood-produced) crap. i mean, 99% of the time now when i want to see a genuinely good film, i need to watch an independent or an import film.

which i find to be sad, considering how great and innovative hollywood used to be...

BTW, what's with all of the shots comparing 2004 to 2004? i mean, what exactly does that have to do with 1977 vs. the final edit, which i thought was the point of this post...?

@gigantes: The "2004 to 2004 comparisons" would actually be the added scenes, which did not appear in the original. Leaving the 1977 part blank would be just a waste of space, and the added scenes are quite relevant to a comparison, don't you think?