Hmm, I thought that middle part would be the easiest to see.
I've compared ISFPs before to pastiche artists, and Lucas excels at creating a visual experience (and audial) in the "now" moment -- in any given second, you can capture an image or sound from his work and it's flawlessly executed and often groundbreaking. However, in terms of an ongoing rhythm/flow and narrative, he starts to falter; he does okay with SOME action sequences but typically loses suspense out of his sequence, he films it just as it is, without any real flare or nuance to it, and in terms of anything actually abstract like character growth or coherency, at best he deals with very broad archetypes but has no idea how a personality ebbs and flows while moving. (For example, as a gross example, the Darth Vader in one trilogy is not the same personality as the Darth Vader in the other, there's no real sense of coherence; but we see this even from scene to scene, the characters seem EXTREMELY static.)
Luke Skywalker experiences no character growth?
As for Darth Vader, there is no fair grounds for comparison between his younger self and his Vader self after the Dark Side takes over. As far as you know, the Emperor was a lot like Robin Williams in his younger days.
I have trouble anyway with your Star Wars argument, as those movies are simply being imitative of old style movie serials.
"I absorb energy like a sponge everywhere I go. It allows me to see the world and my purpose in it." Zak Bagans, Ghost Adventures (INFJ)
"The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.
A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.
There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.
I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.
I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.
The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.
There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered? Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.
I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."
- George Lucas
Lucas delivered this speech to the US Congress on March 3, 1988 at a hearing about copyrights prompted by the re-release of modified versions of classic films by people like Ted Turner, who bought the rights to many of MGM and RKO's old black and white films and was re-releasing colourized versions on TV and home video.
Sadly Lucas has no problem cutting up The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, movies that are nominally not 'his': his friend Irvin Kershner directed the former and Richard Marquand directed the latter. Both have since passed away. They can't fight for their art's integrity anymore.
They were released in the original, unedited versions precisely once on DVD: 2006, as part of a two-disc package with the "Special Editions". As I pointed out earlier this release was based on an old LaserDisc release for 4:3 TVs. They're not anamorphic. They're not set up for modern 16:9 TVs.
I don't see how anything in that speech is contradictory to Lucas' actions. He specifically maintains that the moral right of the artist is paramount, and clearly aligns the interest of the artist with the interest of the public against corporations. The art is whatever the artist says it is. It's impossible for the artist himself to "alter or destroy" a work of his creation. You are correct when you point out that Lucas did not direct two of the Star Wars movies, but any assessment of the situation that does not recognize Lucas as the primary creative force behind those works is pedantic at best. The situations Lucas was railing against in the speech resemble his own situation in only the broadest sense.
I think it's lame what he's done to his movies, and I understand why his fans are angry at it. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to do it, and this speech doesn't make him a hypocrite.
Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.
There is no question he is the creative force behind all Star Wars stuff but relative to his speech he's both 'artist' and 'corporation'. Yes he was the originator of the stories, but it's only as the corporation behind him that he wields the power to fuck with them incessantly. I think the most important quote from the speech is "Why are films cut up and butchered? Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."
He's changing his art under the guise of "That's what I meant to do at the time but couldn't because of <some restriction>," but in changing it he's changing how those movies will be seen going forward. There is now an entire generation of kids who grew up with a tinkered, puttered-around-with version of Star Wars. They don't know what the original was like, and it's possible they never will.
The point is Welles didn't tinker with Citizen Kane. Leonardo didn't 'fix' the flaws in "Mona Lisa". Lucas, as Lucasfilm, is changing the work done by "Story by George Lucas" as well as the work done by dozens of special effects people, the cinematographer, the editor, the other directors, etc.