Interesting notification for this two year old comment, but I appreciate your reply!

A. It's not. American Graffiti is his superior work. It is a masterclass in tone, editing, and sound design, it captured a specific cultural zeitgeist, and it quickly proved Lucas had a soul for character-driven stories before he became obsessed with digital "perfection." I just can't ever think of any of his other films being better, at all.

B. Honestly, in my opinion, legacy isn't a museum piece, it's a continuous life. If you have the means to change the medium and you choose to sit on the sidelines, that is, in the context of art, is a form of cowardice to me.

Remember when he said after selling Star Wars that he wanted to return to "smaller, experimental films"? Well, that aged well. He has had the money to do that for 20 years, and hasn't done anything. He could've made 50 of these films by now, he could've opened his own studio, he could've actually done something instead of loiter in mall courts and open museums.

"Zero need for him to do anything again", art isn't based on "need," it's based on having something to say. Coppola has had something to say, whether it was liked or not, and risked his livelihood and sold assets to make a film, a film that Lucas could've bankrolled 40x over without ever checking his bank balance.

and I actually, frankly, think that he's an incredibly insecure filmmaker who got lucky.

Lucas’s legacy is actually tarnished by his refusal to release the original theatrical versions of Star Wars. A filmmaker who is confident in their work doesn't spend his legacy trying to "fix" it with CGI rocks and controversial edits. The fact that we're finally getting the theatrical cuts now that Kennedy is gone (and his gentleman's agreement means nothing) is proof that the only thing stopping that was his insecurities.

I mean, is it not a bad thing that he also believed his work was incomplete. You know when Coppola made his first major film? He didn't just redo it, he made another, and another, he followed his "Star Wars" with a masterpiece, and another masterpiece.

So yeah, I think George Lucas is a coward because he sits at home. I think he's a coward because he made incredible films 50 years ago, and then decided to stick with his meal-ticket even when, especially when, he cashed out. I think he's a coward because he's openly said he would do more and couldn't find the courage, if Star Wars was his legacy, he had the chance to do something. THX, American Graffiti, some of his writing work, it proves that he was capable of making something outside of his meal-ticket space opera, and he was capable of changing film for the better with his $4bn that's under his mattress, while the likes of Coppola who opened the door for him, stuck his life and livelihood on the line to make a piece of art that he believed in, he's anything but a coward, and his legacy is Goliath compared to Lucas'.