| amp316 said: Lazenby means more to Bond then Tartakovsky means to Star Wars even though he isn't one tenth of what Connery is. He actually portrayed James Bond. Tartakovsky made a cartoon based on George Lucas' universe. I understand you thinking that Lucas has gone downhill,l but you saying that the Clone Wars is better than anything in all of the prequels would be like me arguing that Harold "Baby Jordan in his prime was better than a 40 year old Michael Jordan. Harold Minor mimicked all of Jordan's moves, shaved his head like him, and didn't stick in the NBA that long. The 40 year old Jordan, who wasn't nearly as good as he was in his own prime, still was much better than Harold Minor ever was and better than most any other person on the planet. The same goes for Goerge Lucas. It's not like George Lucas is a no talent hack that lucked into the Star Wars universe after a really good acid trip. He also directed THX1138 and American Graffitti which were both brilliant. And as much as his writing skills are bashed (I do know that he's not Shakespeare), he wrote the scripts for the Indiana Jones movies which most people on this planet love. |
I am calling your taste into question, not the relative import of Mr. Lazenby.
That said, your analog leaves much lacking; Tartakovsky did not mimic Lucas in the original Clone Wars microseries, he built off of his own storytelling mode which was primarily explored in Samurai Jack and certain episodes of Dexter's Laboratory.
Saying that Clone Wars was better than the prequels is like saying that Clone Wars is better than the prequels; trying to draw a parallel between subjective qualitative assertions and objective qualitative measurements is fallacious, disingenuous, and absurd.
