Someone just coined a neologism in another thread that gave me pause - "future-proofing". As in, apparently the SW films NEED perpetual CGI and 3D revision to keep them viable for future generations. But isn't that contrary to how "classics" are supposed to work? A work doesn't "stand the test of time" if it's constantly getting a facelift. Saying that the films require the latest-and-greatest effects seems like a huge insult, essentially agreeing with the series' biggest detractors who have claimed from day one that the films' breakthrough effects are their sole redeeming quality. I have never seen (and hope never to see) anyone seriously suggest replacing Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts skeletons with CG ones. They may not look fresh from the 21st century, but they're still a magnificently well-executed illusion. If a work of art can't stand the test of time without perpetual "upgrades", does it really deserve to? Should such a film really be considered a "classic"? What's wrong with Star Wars being a classic 70s film, just as Casablanca is a classic 40s film, and Jurassic Park a classic 90s one? Or Hamlet a classic Elizabethan play? Or should we repaint the figures in classic Renaissance art with bodies more in line with 21st-century standards of beauty, so that they're "easier" to appreciate sans historical context?