PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Lucas would ever let someone RE-DO prequel trilogy?



TheDarthVader
11-15-2008, 09:48 PM
Well......do you think lucas would ever allow someone to remake the prequel trilogy? Don't get me wrong, I am not a prequel hater. I just think that if lucas had gone in another direction the movies could have been better. IE Letting maul stay alive until ep3 and having him die at the hands of anakin. Because anakin loved qui gon, and qui gon was slain by maul. Besides, maul is FREAKIN awesome and popular!! So what do you think? Can anyone say: Peter Jackson shooting them all at one time?

Beast
11-15-2008, 10:02 PM
Why?

Regardless of how some feel about them they were huge hits.

They neither need to be remade or will be remade.

And Re: Maul. Having him survive E1 and live until Ani kills him in E3 is a terrible idea.

The character was so one-dimensional. He was a rabid bulldog with no real motivation of his own. He had nowhere the elegance or charisma as Palpatine or Vader. Or Dooku.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
11-15-2008, 10:02 PM
Peter Jackson can be a good filmmaker but can also lapse into self-indulgence quite quickly (I guess Lucas can too, though). But if Jackson made a Star Wars, it would be 90% establishing shots. The buzz droid sequence would have been 20 minutes long.

To the main question, no, Lucas will never allow for remakes of anything. He's very protective of these films and has set in stone that nobody can ever make Episodes VII, VIII, and IX, so I have no doubt that he would not let anyone remake any of the movies.

Also, part of Maul's appeal, I think, is that he's mysterious. It was the same thing with Boba Fett, and then a lot of people got turned off when they did more of his backstory and it showed them things they didn't want to see. So it would be the same with Maul.

And as Beast said, there's no reason to redo them.

Beast
11-15-2008, 10:23 PM
I was going to mention the Boba effect in regard to Maul.

It really does seem similar. At least they've kept Maul dead outside of that Visionaries book. Since bringing Boba back from the dead after RotJ was lame.

stillakid
11-15-2008, 11:28 PM
Well, except for a few inexplicable diehards, the majority of the planet (including Lucas himself) knows that the Prequels are subpar and failed to meet reasonable expectations. Boxoffice and DVD sales were good, but that doesn't mean that the movies were good. Hell, I paid to see TPM twice (once because I had great expectations and the second just to make sure I wasn't imagining how bad it was). Then someone else bought me the DVD for Christmas because they know that I am a Star Wars fan.

So $$$ are not necessarily an indicator of quality. With that in mind, yes, the Prequels need to be redone entirely. Lose Maul. Lose Qui Gon. Lose a lot of the crap.

But need won't ever take precendence over ability. Lucas would never allow such a thing. It would be like Coppola allowing someone to remake Godfather 3. It'll never happen. It should, but it'll never happen.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
11-16-2008, 01:34 AM
I remembered while typing up a post that I wasn't going to get into the stupid-*** back-and-forth about the PT anymore, so I cut this by more than half. Anyway, here's this . . .


Boxoffice and DVD sales were good, but that doesn't mean that the movies were good.
"Good is a point of view."

Metacritic scores:
*A New Hope - 91 (universal acclaim)
*The Empire Strikes Back - 78 (generally favorable reviews)
*Return of the Jedi - 52 (mixed or average reviews)
*The Phantom Menace - 52 (mixed or average reviews)
*Attack of the Clones - 53 (mixed or average reviews)
*Revenge of the Sith - 68 (generally favorable reviews)

sith_killer_99
11-16-2008, 02:25 AM
I guess this depends on what you mean.

Do you consider "revisiting" them and making endless changes like he did with the OT...them maybe. So long as he had 100% full and total control of all new mistakes.

If you mean complete re-writes and all new films...then no...NEVER.

It also depends on if you mean GEORGE Lucas or the heirs to his empire 30-40 years from now, who will likely be his children Amanda, Katie, and Jett. His kids may allow it, long after he has passed away.

stillakid
11-16-2008, 02:32 AM
Metacritic scores:
*A New Hope - 91 (universal acclaim)
*The Empire Strikes Back - 78 (generally favorable reviews)
*Return of the Jedi - 52 (mixed or average reviews)
*The Phantom Menace - 52 (mixed or average reviews)
*Attack of the Clones - 53 (mixed or average reviews)
*Revenge of the Sith - 68 (generally favorable reviews)

Metacritic what?

Stats are only as good as the data that goes into it. Tell me something, if you really don't care about something, would YOU waste time searching out some obscure "metacritic" something or other to register your discontent, or would you just move on with your life to do something useful?

Meta what?

Mr. JabbaJohnL
11-16-2008, 02:57 AM
Metacritic is only obscure if you've been living under a rock. It's like Rotten Tomatoes, but only with established, fairly well-known movie critics. The curators of the site collect the info and get the averages.


Tell me something, if you really don't care about something, would YOU waste time searching out some obscure "metacritic" something or other to register your discontent, or would you just move on with your life to do something useful?
"Hi kettle, my name is stillakid the pot. You're black."

Slicker
11-16-2008, 09:08 AM
I think it wouldn't work out at all. And I agree that Darth Maul was just carp. When he died he just stood there! The movies may not be to everyones liking but they're here to stay. That doesn't mean you have to like 'em you've just gotta accept 'em as they are.


BTW, Boba Fett and Darth Maul are quite possibly the carpyest characters ever.

Rocketboy
11-16-2008, 09:52 AM
Remake the Prequels?
Why mess with perfection?
:confused:

Bel-Cam Jos
11-16-2008, 09:59 AM
Slicker, I believe your fingers must've slipped when you were typing; I think that "carpyest" was supposed to be something like "coolest" or "artistic-est." Don't worry; I got your real meaning. :rolleyes:

To answer the question, I checked on a search engine, and got 7,530,000,000 hits for the word I was looking for: "no." There's your proof. As has been said previously, all the films are Lucas' babies. A parent doesn't ask someone to re-make their children. Can they give them different clothing (like EU stories, comics, SW cartoons, video games, etc.)? Sure. Can they buy them "stuff" (action figures, t-shirts, soundtracks, even the trading cards but..., etc.)? Definitely. But to completely or significantly change them, would be like saying "your kids are ugly. Lemme fix 'em for ya." Will there be small-time people who'll "rewrite" the plots, find a "missing" script, create their own films doing just what this thread was asking? Absolutely. But there's no way in Mustafar that Lucas will acknowledge them as anything but funny, fanboy-esque, or at worst case, plagiarism.

Nope. No way. Not ev-er. Like, totally no, and stuff.

stillakid
11-16-2008, 11:26 AM
Metacritic is only obscure if you've been living under a rock. It's like Rotten Tomatoes, but only with established, fairly well-known movie critics. The curators of the site collect the info and get the averages.


"Hi kettle, my name is stillakid the pot. You're black."

As usual, you missed the point. But I wouldn't expect a fan of the Prequels to understand subtle indirect inference. The Prequels are all about being non-subtle because Lucas doesn't trust the audience to have critical thinking skills.

SO, slowly for those in the class who didn't get it the first time, I was explaining that the rest of the world...the NON STAR WARS FANATICS (like us)... aren't likely to seek out obscure sites (like this one and metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, etc) in order to register their discontent with something. Non-fans/fanatics, etc just move on with their lives and don't waste their time devoting precious moments of life to complaining to the internet crowd why they don't like something.

People like US (me included) who are fans above and beyond the rank and file, do get bothered when something in our arena is so royally f'd up. I suppose if I was bothered too much when the Pittsburgh Steelers lose I might be inspired to find a web forum to whine and complain, but I honestly don't care enough to seek out that kind of forum to give praise or complain, so anyone keeping stats would never know what I and others like me think. It's the same with something like metacritic or even here. I know more people in the real world who just didn't like the Prequels and left it there, not devoting anymore brain cells to it than that, than I know fanboys who proclaim Prequel perfection no matter what. So, as I said, statistics are only as good as the data input and the internet fanboy crowd isn't likely going to be an accurate sample.

Did a lot of people go to see the Star Wars Prequels? Of course! But it's the "why?" that is the real question. They went because of the Original Trilogy films which were excellent. They wanted to see that continue, but were very disappointed in TPM. Even some of the most stubborn of fanboys acknowledge that TPM was very poor on it's own as well as relative to the OT films. But "we" gave the saga a second chance with AOTC, to see if Lucas could avert a complete gutter ball. While flashier than TPM with a bit more action to distract from abysmal dialogue and a questionable plot, it still wasn't quite up to par. But it was "better." So people gave ROTS a chance, if for no other reasons than it was the final one. We came this far...might as well check out the last two hours of the story no matter what. It again was all over the place in terms of plot and character motivations, but it was flashy to distract from the errors and holes, which is enough to keep a lot of the audience happy.

Only those truly paying attention can see how badly the Prequels fumbled the ball. Many people, though, just know that "something was wrong" and left it at that. It doesn't mean they didn't see the movies, but those stats don't explain WHY they saw them. And fanboys use those stats to "prove" that the Prequels were good. But that simply isn't true. You can't look at a number and discern motivation behind it (would you suggest that the Lottery sells lots of tickets because so many people win it?). People went to each of the Prequel movies for different reasons, but quality wasn't one of them. An expectation of quality was hoped for because of the Original Trilogy, but it is universally recognized that the Prequels failed to deliver.

So, should the Prequels be remade from the ground up? Definitely. Will they? Not a chance. Lucas's ego wouldn't stand for it.

Mad Slanted Powers
11-16-2008, 12:49 PM
He said that metacritic was made up of well-known established film critics, so all of your talk of who is visiting those sites seems irrelevant.

I disagree that AOTC was better than TPM. I thought TPM was pretty good. Qui-Gon was one of the best characters in the film, so I certainly wouldn't remove him.

We definitely won't see Star Wars totally remade as long as Lucas is alive. Perhaps sometime down the road if his heirs allow it, someone might try to re-imagine the whole thing, not just the prequels.

TheDarthVader
11-16-2008, 01:25 PM
Well, I wonder if he would ever do some subtle changes then?

I guess I should have just made this a poll because I don't care to try to read through the PT bashing and PT praising. That is not what this thread is about. I was just wondering if he would ever allow the story to go in another direction. I am not saying that I believe a new direction would be better. I guess I just want more and to think that there isn't going to be anymore big movies is a downer. Is the new clone wars supposed to be replacing the old cartoon clone wars? Because I wasn't sure if the new movie came after the cartoon series or replaced it in respect to the star wars time line.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
11-16-2008, 04:27 PM
He said that metacritic was made up of well-known established film critics, so all of your talk of who is visiting those sites seems irrelevant.
Exactly, thank you. That's all I need to say on that subject.


Is the new clone wars supposed to be replacing the old cartoon clone wars? Because I wasn't sure if the new movie came after the cartoon series or replaced it in respect to the star wars time line.
It still seems to me like the new series takes place during Anakin's "heroic" montage from the old series or a little after. It's after he's a knight, but before he and Obi-Wan re-emerge with the new looks. That's my take, anyway. As far as I can tell, they're not even trying to reconcile the new series with the pre-existing cartoon and comics and books but they'll probably get around to it eventually, likely after it's done.

bigbarada
11-16-2008, 04:44 PM
As far as I can tell, they're not even trying to reconcile the new series with the pre-existing cartoon and comics and books but they'll probably get around to it eventually, likely after it's done.

I thought the new cartoon was supposed to replace the old Tartakovsky cartoon.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
11-16-2008, 05:06 PM
I thought the new cartoon was supposed to replace the old Tartakovsky cartoon.
There's been a lot of "well I heard him say . . ." but they're apparently supposed to be more alongside each other from what I can tell. It's not like they're wiping the old one out of existence or anything. I have heard Lucas say that the old series was kind of a "pilot series" for this one, but that was from a while ago.

stillakid
11-16-2008, 07:44 PM
I thought the new cartoon was supposed to replace the old Tartakovsky cartoon.

I think that blows. I enjoyed the "old" Tartakovsky 'toon far far better than this one for a lot of reasons. The action figures were better in that style too than the newest versions. I don't see this new Clone Wars lasting too long. I can't imagine the ratings will hold up for more than a season or two at best. It's just too "plastic" and "blah." :ermm:

bigbarada
11-16-2008, 08:29 PM
I wasn't a huge fan of the Tartakovsky cartoon. The animation just seemed cheap to me. While I don't think it was the greatest idea in the world to release the pilot episode of this new series in theaters, when you compare it to what passes for "quality animation" on TV right now, it really is top notch work.

As for the question of Lucas letting someone rewriting the Prequels, I think this new series might be an indirect way for him to do that. In the TV Guide interview where he stated that the original cartoon was just an experiment, he also said that this new series would allow him to develop Anakin into the non-brooding, heroic character that he was meant to be before his fall.

What I read that as was Lucas saying, "I screwed up and didn't develop Anakin properly during the Prequel films, so I need this TV series to rewrite him completely."

As much as I like this new cartoon, I agree that it will likely have a short run. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing, if it runs more than 2 or 3 seasons, then it will naturally start to replace existing film continuity.

El Chuxter
11-16-2008, 09:09 PM
...when you compare it to what passes for "quality animation" on TV right now, it really is top notch work.

I agree with you, but I see that more as a testament to how barren the world of TV animation is right now than to how great this show is. I've always preferred the Tartakovsky show; not only have I been a fan of his work since Dexter's Lab, but he nailed what people expected of the prequels in ways Lucas never did. Plus, being so cartoony and abstract, he could get away with a lot of craziness that is harder to forgive in a semi-realistic 'toon.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
11-16-2008, 09:53 PM
As for the question of Lucas letting someone rewriting the Prequels, I think this new series might be an indirect way for him to do that. In the TV Guide interview where he stated that the original cartoon was just an experiment, he also said that this new series would allow him to develop Anakin into the non-brooding, heroic character that he was meant to be before his fall.

What I read that as was Lucas saying, "I screwed up and didn't develop Anakin properly during the Prequel films, so I need this TV series to rewrite him completely."

I disagree here, though it's an interesting point. Anakin's rise and fall was supposed to be the center of the prequels, and it was. This in the show was him at the top, before the fall. We see a little bit of it at the start of ROTS, but it's not completely central to the overall story, IMO. It's more inferred throughout AOTC and ROTS than outright shown.


I've always preferred the Tartakovsky show; not only have I been a fan of his work since Dexter's Lab, but he nailed what people expected of the prequels in ways Lucas never did. Plus, being so cartoony and abstract, he could get away with a lot of craziness that is harder to forgive in a semi-realistic 'toon.
The cartoony and abstract segments, however, were exactly what turned a lot of other people off. If Mace Windu could destroy an entire droid army singlehandedly, then nothing would be difficult for them. It was fun but a little too over-the-top.

I think we all need to stop making such blanket statements, though. (I realize that that is itself a blanket statement . . . just call me Obi-Wan. ;) ) Some people like the prequels, some like the old cartoon, some like the new cartoon, some like a combination, some like all three, and some like none of them. It's not a matter of intelligence, just one of opinion. :)

El Chuxter
11-16-2008, 09:56 PM
I know we disagree on the 'toon, JJL. I'm just saying that's how it is from my POV--when it doesn't look real, you can get away with a lot more. That's why the old Ewok cartoon is enjoyable (somewhat), but the Holiday Special isn't.

bigbarada
11-16-2008, 10:02 PM
We see a little bit of it at the start of ROTS, but it's not completely central to the overall story, IMO. It's more inferred throughout AOTC and ROTS than outright shown.

Yeah, I remember that at the beginning of ROTS, I just don't think it was very effective or convincing; but that just reinforces the feeling that my biggest problem with Anakin Skywalker's character in the Prequels was the casting of Hayden Christensen.

Rocketboy
11-16-2008, 11:24 PM
Re: CW not lasting long.
Lucas had said numerous times that CW will be 100 episodes no matter what.

bigbarada
11-16-2008, 11:34 PM
Re: CW not lasting long.
Lucas had said numerous times that CW will be 100 episodes no matter what.

100 episodes, wow! That's 4 seasons for a weekly show or about 2 years worth of episodes. Awesome!:thumbsup:

plasticfetish
11-16-2008, 11:35 PM
Heck, I just re-made the prequel trilogy about an hour ago! Oh wait... that was a turkey sandwich I made. My bad.

If they can make a musical of Hair Spray, and then make another film version (of a perfectly good film) just a little while later, I can't see why Lucas would have a problem with several versions of The Phantom Menace. Perhaps they can do an "on ice" version, and then a live "rock opera" version, and maybe if someone like Ken Russell wants to do another film version, I say go for it!!!

Oh wait... my bad again. I meant to say that doing a remake of the prequels is a lame idea, and that I should make another turkey sandwich now.

2-1B
11-17-2008, 08:58 PM
a jive turkey sandwhich?

Devo
11-18-2008, 11:01 PM
I'd love if he would let someone else have a crack at it. Let someone out there make the films we were actually expecting - even the PT lovers might admit that they didn't get what they presumed they would.

But, I know he won't allow it, and as my thread about Star wars apathy indicated - its likely I will never again like 'new' star wars as long as Lucas is involved.

Those of us who are OT purists were wrong to think he would make the prequels for his original fans - clearly - but I'll never understand his refusal to make something as good as it possibly can be. Why insist on writing when he admits he can't write to save his life. Why direct when he knows he can't direct actors. Why make it all about soulless special effects when it could have been so much more.

Talking of special effects I read an interview where he talked about Red Tails and that all the planes would be CGI. I can immediatley say I won't bother watching that. Unless he has some magically concocted new writing and directing skills this man cannot sell any of his new projects on special effects alone. He got away with it on star wars because star wars is star wars but it won't work on, I dare say, anything else.

plasticfetish
11-19-2008, 12:15 AM
Talking of special effects I read an interview where he talked about Red Tails and that all the planes would be CGI.I have no problem with CG planes. Airplanes don't act, so there's no threat of a mediocre performance because the plane has no real idea of what's going on.

bigbarada
11-19-2008, 01:58 PM
I don't see a problem with CG planes in a WW2 film, because they are getting very difficult to find in working condition these days. Building a plane in the computer doesn't require gas or oil or constant maintenance, plus there is the massive safety issue of putting your actors in the air inside a 60-year-old aircraft.

The other nice thing about CG models is they don't age or take up storage space. So let Lucas work out all the technical details in getting photorealistic CG airplanes made, then those models will be available for more talented and creative directors who want to make WW2 movies in the future.

Devo
11-19-2008, 11:10 PM
I have no problem with CGI planes. Airplanes don't act, so there's no threat of a mediocre performance because the plane has no real idea of what's going on.


You're not wrong. But actors cannot respond to CGI very well, especially when under george lucas direction...and neither can audiences. CGI is a soulless means of doing special effects. It has to have something else to back it up or else we might aswell just play a computer game. And we know Lucas tends to focus a smidge too much on the special effects side of things.

plasticfetish
11-20-2008, 01:56 AM
I think you've made the ultimate point. Don't blame the technology... blame the director.

Special effects have always been a part of film making, and the same things have always been required from everyone. The director needs to have a clear vision that he can adequately communicate to the actors, and the actors need to have the imagination and talent to bring that vision to life.

Who knows, maybe working on something other than Star Wars will light a fire under the guy's a**, and he'll show a little passion.

stillakid
11-20-2008, 02:47 PM
This sums it all up nicely.... http://chefelf.com/starwars/lucas_1983-2005.php

El Chuxter
11-20-2008, 03:08 PM
Awesome. :thumbsup:

Qui-Long Gone
11-20-2008, 03:10 PM
This sums it all up nicely.... http://chefelf.com/starwars/lucas_1983-2005.php



WELL DONE. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


If a picture is worth a thousand words, that says a crap load....

plasticfetish
11-20-2008, 04:37 PM
I'm not willing to blame the medium for how weak the message was. I have nothing against using computers. Blaming CG is a little like going bowling and blaming the lane for how many gutter balls you threw.

It's still all on Lucas, or any artist, to make the most of what tools they have at their disposal. The challenge with CG is, has been, and will always be resisting the urge to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the mix. What made so many earlier films strong, was that the directors knew how to work artistically within their given confines.

Lucas is no different than any other hungry young artist that finally made it big, and then had everything he ever wanted thrown in his face. When you're no longer forced to edit yourself because of limited means, you need to develop the strength to do it on your own... or run the risk of producing bloated, ill-focused work that people won't take to on a personal level.

Seriously, especially right now, we can all appreciate a situation where a guy makes something brilliant from nothing. When you have a situation where nothing much is made from everything... well...

Qui-Long Gone
11-20-2008, 05:38 PM
It's still all on Lucas, or any artist, to make the most of what tools they have at their disposal. The challenge with CG is, has been, and will always be resisting the urge to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the mix. What made so many earlier films strong, was that the directors knew how to work artistically within their given confines.


Totally agree. Pixar is a great example of a group of artists who steer the technology rather than the technology steering the art. If you look at their sketchbooks, etc...their films are still driven by the basic craft of drawing, composition, storytelling, character development. Their movies are superior because technology is just a means to the end, not the end. The ability to restrain - something Lucas has lacked recently - is key in resisting that urge to fill the kitchen sink!

Devo
11-21-2008, 10:24 AM
OK then. You've all said it better than I. Lucas is the problem. Given his evident attitude about what constitutes entertainment - as much CG packed onto a screen in any one shot as possible, ''never mind about that acting part or the fact my writing doesn't make sense'' - I doubt we'll see another good film from him. ANH and ESB were absolute flukes, coming at a time when he had to have wiser people looking over his shoulder. Of course, by going to see the prequels in our droves we gave Lucas the message that Special effects at the expense of everything else is fine filmmaking - again, that was because of the Star wars effect. It won't work again. Audiences are tired of CG fests. Its not new anymore.

El Chuxter
11-21-2008, 10:41 AM
I think it's more that Lucas (despite his reputation as an editor) can't edit himself. By all accounts, the rough cut of Star Wars was so bad the movie would've been a fiasco. He doesn't know when he's gone overboard, and he's surrounded himself by yes-men, so he doesn't get any good criticism.

It's hardly just Lucas, though. There are lots of famous people who are geniuses, but can't reign themselves in. Look at King Kong. Peter Jackson didn't know when he'd hit the "too much" threshold, so we got something not nearly as good as the LOTR series. Or Grant Morrison. When he's got an editor looking over his shoulder, saying, "Uh, dude, you can't kill so-and-so and turn so-and-so into a pedophile," he's great. But when it's "Ooh, you're Grant Morrison! Do what you want! You want to make all the 1950s sci-fi Batman stories part of his official backstory, bring in a homicidal son, and then retire him? Awesome," then you just get crap.

bigbarada
11-21-2008, 01:28 PM
I think it's more that Lucas (despite his reputation as an editor) can't edit himself. By all accounts, the rough cut of Star Wars was so bad the movie would've been a fiasco. He doesn't know when he's gone overboard, and he's surrounded himself by yes-men, so he doesn't get any good criticism.

It's hardly just Lucas, though. There are lots of famous people who are geniuses, but can't reign themselves in. Look at King Kong. Peter Jackson didn't know when he'd hit the "too much" threshold, so we got something not nearly as good as the LOTR series. Or Grant Morrison. When he's got an editor looking over his shoulder, saying, "Uh, dude, you can't kill so-and-so and turn so-and-so into a pedophile," he's great. But when it's "Ooh, you're Grant Morrison! Do what you want! You want to make all the 1950s sci-fi Batman stories part of his official backstory, bring in a homicidal son, and then retire him? Awesome," then you just get crap.

King Kong is a great example of how too much success can actually hurt a director, not help him. The whole first hour of that movie was completely unnecessary.

As for Star Wars, the general rule seems to be that the less direct involvement from Lucas himself, the better the movie turns out. Empire Strikes Back is the film where Lucas has the least involvement. He only showed up on set during principle photography twice and he didn't go to Norway during the filming of the Hoth scenes at all. Which is why Kershner was able to "forget" to film major sequences like the Wampa attack on the Rebel base (or push the scenes to the end of the filming schedule and conveniently run out of time).

For anyone who thinks that Lucas' insanity is a recent development, then I would recommend reading the Annotated Screenplays book for the OT. Lucas never came up with any new ideas for the PT, he simply recycled old, rejected ideas.

Coruscant was originally supposed to show up in ROTJ. Utapau is just based on rejected designs for Mos Eisley. Naboo is a combination of two planets that were supposed to show up in ESB: a garden planet and a grasslands planet. In addition, Kamino was also originally written for ESB. Felucia was also most likely based on the rejected "garden planet" idea.

Qui-Long Gone
11-24-2008, 02:00 PM
For anyone who thinks that Lucas' insanity is a recent development, then I would recommend reading the Annotated Screenplays book for the OT. Lucas never came up with any new ideas for the PT, he simply recycled old, rejected ideas.

I hear ya...I think that movie about duck sex is also proof of the mad genius that is Lucas....:)