Not to mention the fact that movie studios and their corporate owners have been involved in making profit from film art for decades. Those in control are not artists ... they are businessmen who employ artists (and hacks) for the purpose of making money ... in a business where years of time and tons of capital must be invested to make that money.

Why would I assume George Lucas immune to such a money-making system when so many have been involved in precisely that?

If the prequels were so drastically different from the original trilogy that the original had to be changed to match, why not take the logical step and make a series of sci-fi movies that are not called "Star Wars?"

I will not be so bold as to assume Lucas had solely mercenary motives in making the prequels. Perhaps they were a labor of love. I have only external evidence to go by. If he had not deemed the two trilogies such a mis-match that changes had to be made retroactively to 20-year-old films, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives. But his own actions demonstrate, to me at least, that the profit motive was dominant. Star Wars is a money-making machine.

Furthermore, the lack of any original creations by Lucas since the 80's leads me to believe he is currently a hack, and not an artist. These pieces of evidence would not convict him in a court of law, but they operate in the court of public opinion ... and I have formed my opinion of the man based on them - - not out of thin air or merely because I loathe his work.

.