Posted 2004-09-20 05:11:33 by
I'm starting to think that George Lucas belongs in the ranks of Dan O'Bannon, who wrote Alien and then did nothing with the rest of his career (except Return of the Living Dead), Bob Gale, who wrote Back to the Future and then did nothing with the rest of his career (except Tattoo Assassins), and Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, who made the Blair Witch Project and are in the process of doing nothing with the rest of their careers, ash Larry and Andy Wachowski, who made The Matrix and then made the two Matrix sequels.
All these people stumbled on one great idea, made a huge hit, and then, surprise surprise, couldn't come up with another great idea, probably because the first one was an accident. The George Lucas difference is that he did it at a different time in Hollywood's history. Star Wars wasn't just a blockbuster, it invented the blockbuster. And since previously, sequels hadn't been considered important and weren't big money makers, he left The Empire Strikes Back in the competent hands of Leigh Brackett and Irvin Kershner. It's hardly a surprise that that movie is widely considered the best of the series, and of course George Lucas was credited with it in the public eye, solidifying his position as more than just a one-hit wonder.
Unfortunately, after taking over directing again, he's made it pretty clear that he deserved to be. The Phantom Menace sucked. Attack of the Clones sucked, though slighty less. Let's face it, even Return of the Jedi pretty much sucked. And with the special edition DVD release -- and lack of an actual edition release -- he seems intent on making the first trilogy suck in its entirety.