Now that spark has been extinguished by years of resting on his laurels improving the special effect industry instead of his own directing style and techniques.
Which is a drastically oversimplified and almost soap-opera cardboard thin characterization that doesn't have much basis in anything but simplistic bullshit.
C'mon man. Study up on the dude. His "Spark" was always pretty low burning. The most heated he got was when his dad said he'd never make any money at it. He also hasn't really been "resting on his laurels" considering people keep forgetting he CREATED Indiana Jones, and guided that character through three different movies. His directing style has grown and changed, evolved, that's visible just by watching the Prequels themselves, how Episode I doesn't have the same visual quirks as Episode II, which isn't as polished or assured as Episode III. Plus, it's not as if trying to revolutionize the way movies are made is "resting on your laurels" that's some hard work, man. It's certainly not EASY by any stretch of the word.
The idea that he needs an "edge" is comedy, to me. Filmmaking is not prizefighting. Lots of filmmakers make good to great movies every year without being "Hungry" or "antsy" with the "eye of the tiger" or whatever. He's doing pre-prod on a movie about black pilots during World War II right now. You're telling me this is a guy who's lazy and fat and uncaring who doesn't care about telling his own stories anymore? Now THAT'S what doesnt' make sense to me. He finishes the Prequel Trilogy, with a story unique to almost ANY speculation and prediction that swirled around it, stuck with it for over a decade, and moves from that to a movie about fighter pilots in world war II and the problems they had to go up against and you're saying this guys doesn't like telling his own stories?
or is what you're REALLY saying that "I don't like his stories so much anymore."
One of those is not the same as the other. There's nothing wrong with disliking (strongly) what he's making anymore. but it's pretty irresponsible to start claiming all kinds of character flaws you're pulling from nowhere but ancient stereotypes of OTHER PEOPLE that you've seen in fiction and movies, and ascribing them to a guy simply because he changed some stuff in some movies he did.
That's all I'm saying.
he's the same guy. He's older, he's grown a little, but the same creative mind, exercising it in the same creative way. Results may vary. Picasso didn't paint a masterpiece everytime the brush hit the canvas. Not pleasing everybody isn't a sign that the artist doesn't CARE anymore. That's a false leap in logic.