The problem in our society is that it's difficult to argue the quality of something that made a shit-ton of money. The masses, by and large, simply do not care as long as they're entertained on some level. It's the culture, whatya gonna do.
I should just start another thread about this (how did we even get this far off topic in the first place????), but most of us can agree that George shouldn't have directed the prequels, yes? Can we agree that George could've hired a better director and still made just as much money at the box office on Episode I so that (gasp) more people would've come back to see Episode II????
That's my biggest problem with the prequels. They would've made a ton of money either way, so why couldn't George have just hired three good directors?
Yes, I realize that opens up a whole new can of worms. Let's face it, even if George had done so, he still would've been a control freak about it.
I still think we would've gotten significantly better movies, though.
I'm sorry, but originator of the franchise or not, it's a conflict of interest when the guy who is paying the $100 million for the movie is also its director.
The Empire Strikes Back would not be regarded the way it is today if it hadn't been for the efforts of Lawrence Kasdan, Leigh Brackett, Irvin Kershner and Peter Suschitzky. Yes, it's commendable that George paid for the whole thing himself in order to avoid Hollywood looking over his shoulder, but aside from writing the story he should've left it at that for the other four movies.
It's awkward to me that the "saga" in chronological order is three movies made by a billionaire followed by a movie made by a previously low-budget director, followed by a really amazing sequel, followed by an okay but nevertheless satisfactory ending.
Hmmmm, okay, to wrap up my ramblings, I guess the question I ask is whether the prequels could've been just as profitable for LFL but still had new writers, directors and cinematographers.