star-wars.JPG

C3PO and Luke Skywalker could only imagine where they'd be 30 years later.

(The Associated Press/Lucasfilm)

None of George Lucas' filmmaker friends thought he should make "Star Wars."

"They said, 'George you should be making more of an artistic statement,'" Lucas told The New Yorker in 1997. "People said I should have made 'Apocalypse Now' ... and not 'Star Wars.' They said I should be doing movies like 'Taxi Driver.'"

Many "Star Wars" fans believe Francis Ford Coppola, et al, should have given Lucas the same advice -- more forcefully -- when he decided to do the "Star Wars" prequels.

Because a long time ago (and not in a galaxy far, far away), Lucas was considered a serious writer-director. His first film, 1971's dystopic "THX 1138," had a cult following long before anyone had ever heard of a Jedi knight. Roger Ebert called Lucas' second movie, 1973's "American Graffiti," "not only a great movie but a brilliant work of historical fiction; no sociological treatise could duplicate the movie's success in remembering exactly how it was to be alive at that cultural instant."

Then in 1977 came "Star Wars," which received even more critical acclaim than "Graffiti." More important: it busted box-office records and remade both popular culture and Hollywood culture. Two hugely popular sequels, "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," soon followed.

Lucas has never been the same since. Giving up his one-time ambition to make small, personal movies, he became obsessed with what he calls "popcorn pictures" and then with digital special effects. Though a prolific producer, he didn't direct another movie after "Star Wars" for more than 20 years -- until he returned to his space saga.

In the mid-1990s, he warmed up for his return to directing by diddling with the old "Star Wars" movies, angering fans by changing their look and "feel" and altering an iconic scene that establishes the roguish Han Solo's character. "There will only be one," Lucas said when asked which version of the trilogy he thought the next generation of fans will watch. "And it won't be what I would call the 'rough cut.' It'll be the 'final cut.' The other one will be some sort of interesting artifact that people will look at and say, 'There was an earlier draft of this.'"

Then, from 1999 to 2005, Lucas made entirely new "Star Wars" movies: the three prequels, "The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith."

These movies, unlike the first trilogy, mostly have not been well received by critics or even hard-core fans. There was the Jar-Jar Binks embarrassment. There was the plot, such as it was, that revolved around the Trade Federation. And the digital effects that made the movies look like they were populated by video-game characters rather than living creatures. The consensus opinion was that Lucas had become so immersed in his own creation that he had lost all perspective.

One of the reasons the inwardly focused Lucas didn't direct for so long is that he knew he was bad with actors, famously offering one of only two suggestions whenever starting up another take: "OK, same thing, only better" and "faster, more intense." This lack of connection with other humans, along with the awkward dialogue the actors had to cough out in front of green screens, became a serious issue with the prequels. No flesh-and-blood actor, not even Ewan McGregor, gives a particularly memorable performance in the second trilogy. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman especially suffered.

"Let's face it: the love story between Anakin and Queen Amidala was painful," wrote Hitfix's Chris Eggertsen. "How painful? People actually had to laugh to keep from crying."

The entertainment website Hitfix has returned to this subject often, writing earlier this year: "Did you like the 'Star Wars' prequels? No? Well join the club, the club being basically all of America. But never fear, because JJ Abrams is here to save the franchise from George Lucas, who once cared about something other than making piles and piles of money (we think).

Hitfix, needless to say, is far from alone in this stance.

"Star Wars Episodes I-III are a veritable treasure trove of poor decision-making," Robbie Boland wrote for IGN Entertainment last year. He added: "Now that J.J. Abrams is at the helm for Episode VII, can't we just forget Jar Jar, midi-chlorians and all the rest?"

Are you noticing a trend here? J.J. Abrams, the talented director of the forthcoming "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and one of the men behind the worst series ending in TV history (that would be for the otherwise smart and engrossing "Lost"), has been elevated by "Star Wars" fans into a savior, a true artist far above the crass and juvenile Lucas.

Fast Company's Co.Design blog even geeked out about the redesigned lightsaber in the first "Force Awakens" trailer (watch below), calling it the tool of "a bloodthirsty berserker" and heralding it as a brilliant example of "J.J. Abram's story-driven approach to the 'Star Wars' universe." Continues Co.Design:

"After all of the silly lightsaber ballet of the prequels, it opens up a whole new dynamic, and immediately differentiates the character in the trailer from every 'Star Wars' baddie who has come before him."

This probably wasn't what Lucas had in mind two years ago when he sold the "Star Wars" franchise to Disney for $4 billion. He wanted to make sure his universe lived on long after him. "It's now time for me to pass 'Star Wars' on to a new generation of filmmakers," he said at the time.

To be sure, the 70-year-old Lucas remains revered for creating the "Star Wars" universe. But it's also undeniable that he's now widely considered a hack as a writer-director. Does anyone remember that he scored Oscar nominations for both best director and best screenplay for the original "Star Wars"? More than 30 years later, it barely seems possible.

The release last week of the first trailer for Abrams' "The Force Awakens" has added momentum to the Lucas-is-a-hack viewpoint. It could well be that when the seventh "Star Wars" movie arrives in December of 2015, the first without Lucas in control, it will put the final nail in the coffin of Lucas' reputation as a quality filmmaker.

Consider Australian filmmaker Michael Shanks' reaction to the trailer. He ingeniously reworked it, imagining how the trailer would have looked if Lucas had made it. "The Dark Side," the narrator now intones. "And trade negotiations." Wrote the A.V. Club: "Emphasizing the sheer overkill of dumping CGI versions of classic (and less classic) 'Star Wars' characters into the films, Shanks' parody integrates all the trappings of George Lucas' maligned recuts of the original trilogy while taking some digs at his handling of the prequels." (Watch Shanks' version of the trailer below.)

It's a devastating critique. The message is clear: Abrams is doing it right. Lucas would have screwed it up, so good thing he took his $4 billion and left the "Star Wars" franchise to the professionals.

This isn't remotely fair, of course. Lucas conjured the "Star Wars" universe out of little more than Joseph Campbell essays and old Flash Gordon serials. Studio executives flipping through the script wondered what the heck a chewbacca was. Lucas' friends mocked him. His wife didn't think anything would come of the project. But he persevered and made a movie that changed ... everything. Now, by ensuring the continuation of "Star Wars" with the sale to Disney, he finds himself trivialized by the fans who helped make him wealthy and famous.

"I've never been that much of a money guy," Lucas told Businessweek after the announcement of the Disney deal. "I'm more of a film guy, and most of the money I've made is in defense of trying to keep creative control of my movies."

Lucas now finds himself in an odd position. If his decision to relinquish control of the "Star Wars" franchise proves to be the right one, he ultimately might end up -- like the "rough cut" version of his movie that swept the world 37 years ago -- little more than an interesting artifact, an earlier draft.

-- Douglas Perry