Originally posted by: Jumpman
Tiptup,

Wouldn't you use Star Wars as a money making machine if numerous companies depended on the brand to survive?

No, not if Star Wars was no longer particularly interesting to me. I would pass control of the franchise onto other artists and see what they want to do with it. (Or, better yet, I would invent new films and new ideas to hopefully make money with.) I doubt I would analyze every detail of the franchise according to what makes more money or less money. I'd value the art first.

Oh, and just to be clear, I don’t fault a man for altering his art in light of a pursuit of money (even if I would try to do otherwise). If you want to know why I'm displeased with Lucas, Jumpman, it’s not because of how he’s changed Star Wars (though I do find that sad). For years George promoted himself as a genius whose singular, intentional vision is what bestowed Star Wars upon the world and I believed that bullshit. I thought George was one of the greatest artists of our modern time.

Then, as time went by, I began to see how much the prequels sucked and I began to question the image I had acquired of Lucas. Then George began to ignore the original versions of the OT to the point where I could only conclude that he desired to erase them, and I became perplexed by George's motives. And, lastly, the 2004 DVDs are released with outright offensive changes and I lost all of my previous respect for the man. So, now with great reason to be skeptical, I went back and researched his true role in the original Star Wars and discovered that, aside from some generic concepts he was able to use in fresh ways, Star Wars owed most of its artistic achievement to all of the other people that George worked with (people like Ralph McQuarrie). George Lucas, at most, helped organize everything brilliantly according to the groundwork he devised. That’s hardly a single-handed achievement, and if the man is going to lift his image so high, then he deserves a rough landing when people discover the truth.