This is something that I've always wondered, as I think one of the reasons why critics and film buffs are rather dismissive of George Lucas is that he's really only done four films so far, and two of them are part of the same series. Also, as he's spend so long as just being a producer, or executive producer, who are considered to be only interested in making money, I think that might have also harmed his image as an artist. If you take someone like Steven Spielberg, for instance, who during the eighties had has name stuck on countless films, also carried on directing, which I think saved him losing his power as a director. So, if George had carried on directing, maybe doing small, experimental stuff like he plans to do after Star Wars is finished, do you think he would be higher regarded as a director? Sorry if this thread doesn't make much sense, but I've always wondered this!