No, I’m saying you cannot take somebody else’s art, tweak it a bit, and then claim you’re being artistic.
But that’s often how art is actually made. There’s an entire subforum of this very site that is dedicated to pursuing that ideal, in fact. You CAN take someone’s art, tweak it, and claim you’re being artistic, because that IS a valid artistic expression. Andy Warhol is probably the most famous example of that principle being accepted as truth.
And you’re still belittling the act of creation being done on the part of creatives who have been working at Lucasfilm since 2012 (many of whom have worked with Lucas both before AND after the sale) as mere “tweaking” when their contributions and execution is quite a bit more than simply “tweaking” something. You’re more or less just doubling down on the endeavour of disqualifying something as art rather than accepting it for what it is and judging it accordingly. It’s more than enough to simply not like the art being made, if that’s all there really is to it - there’s no real reason to go out of your way to suggest it shouldn’t be qualified as art to begin with. I think Attack of the Clones is a genuinely horrible movie on its own merits - I wouldn’t ever think to say it’s not really a Star Wars movie, or further, not really a movie at all because it sucks. It’s just a bad Star Wars movie. Going the extra step to disqualify its existence is sort of absurd, really.
I apologize if this reads as out of line, especially since I don’t actually know you at all and aren’t familiar with you outside of the posts I’ve seen of yours in this forum, but might I suggest that it’s at least POSSIBLE you’re a little more accepting of other people’s artistic “tweaking” of pre-existing texts and works (The Shining, The Lord of the Rings) partially because there isn’t as strong an emotional or historical connection with those works and creators as you consistently work to maintain with regards to Star Wars?
Because it feels like there’s an idealized, romanticized version of Star Wars you’re using as the measuring stick by which the Sequel Trilogy must be judged, and that version of Star Wars doesn’t necessarily exist in any quantifiable way outside of your own head and heart. Which might be why I’m reacting to the notion that there’s a fundamental betrayal of Lucas being perpetrated in the way I am, because I genuinely do not see evidence of that in the work itself. The Sequel Trilogy feels like an artistically valid continuation of the story he started telling in 1977, and on a general filmmaking and storytelling level, the films as created under Kennedy’s leadership at the studio are, on average, better made, more compelling, and more INTERESTING as a collection of films than what Lucas turned out when he had sole control of the studio.
I disagree they are more compelling, and more interesting. I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry. The main driving force is a return on investment on 4 billion dollar’s worth of IP, and so one Star Wars movie a year had to be made. That’s putting the cart in front of the horse. Contrast this with Lucas waiting sixteen years to finish his story, and in his case there actually was a story to be told, even if the execution was lacking. I just don’t believe a return on investment, market research, a time line, and preset release dates are a prerequisite for artistic expression. They are a prerequisite for a product, that hopefully will have entertainment value, some artistic elements, some creativity, hard work, and craft. I think it is very telling that after two ST films the main draw is the resurrection of one of Lucas’ long since dead characters. I think that speaks to the lack of narrative, and artistic purpose of these films.