One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong...Sorry George, but you lost the plot in 1978.

Unwilling to include Mr. Coppola in the lost the plot category? I suppose "Jack" had some redeeming qualities--the dancing nerd, Bill Cosby, Fran Drescher--but still. His last great film was Captain EO.

Also, I thought Episode III was fantastic. Just say'n.

bs, I thought Ep III was abysmal and as far as loding the plot, I thought Tucker wasn't bad, nor was about 3/4 of Gardens of Stone. Those plus 2 Godfathers and Apocalypse trumps Star Wars and A.G., IMHO.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but to pit those movies AGAINST Lucas strikes me as strange: Lucas had a big hand in their creation! (He filmed a portion of the Godfather and was a writer of AN while at American Zoetrope). But we've strayed from your initial point a bit, and it shouldn't be overlooked that Tucker and Gardens of Stone are twenty years old. Sure it's not 1978, but it's a long time ago (BTW Empire came out in 1980, and Raiders, which Lucas wrote, came out in 1981--if you'r not fond of those films then we're no doubt talking past one another).

Even so--and to be perfectly honest--I think that all four will be described by film historians as artists and visionaries and that even their late material will be viewed in a positive light. Heck, I loved ep. 3, munich, minority report, the departed, and really liked the rainmaker, ep. ii, the aviator, and catch me if you can. Admittedly, each of them, save for spielberg, has lost a bit off of his fastball. But still, they remain very much above average.

Oh, I think Raiders is a perfect film and Empire is better than Star Wars. As far as "not belonging," I was really referring to Lucas the director, but you're right, Coppola is pretty much a middle inning mop up guy, too.

Bram Stoker's Dracula!

it figures George Lucas would spark the biggest comment thread this site has ever seen.