I always assumed that director George Lucas was impervious to, if not totally unconscious of, criticism.

And then two weeks ago, in response to a question about the possibility of future “Star Wars” films, Lucas told a New York Times reporter, “Why would I make any more… when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?”

Whoa.

Far from seeming impervious, Lucas sounds like someone who is sulking because he’d been prevented from going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters.

As Lucas touts the 3-D version of what is arguably his most reviled film, “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace,” perhaps it is time to cut the brooding billionaire some slack.

And yet there’s the whole thorny matter of that re-release.

In the annals of cinema, there are movies that are so good that they’re difficult to watch again (“Requiem for a Dream,” for example).

And then there are movies that are so bad that their badness is a rocky place where not even kitsch or camp can find purchase.

I don’t want to say which group “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” falls into, but I am reasonably certain that 3-D won’t fix what is wrong with it.

The fact that “Star Wars” fans still debate the merits and demerits of “The Phantom Menace” 12 years after its release is a testament to something. I am just not sure what.

Perhaps it is a testament to how badly hardcore fans want to convince themselves that, despite their initial negative reaction to the film (“initial” being the reaction they had after the first 20 or so viewings), they really do like “The Phantom Menace” after all.

Far from being upset with fans, Lucas should be grateful for their perseverance.

Most of them will return to the multiplex to see “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” in 3-D, not because they are dying to experience the film in that grossly overhyped format, but because they are aching to give themselves yet another chance to fall in love with it.

“The Phantom Menace” certainly ranks among my most disappointing cinematic experiences, but I bear no ill will toward Lucas for that.

I am sure there are people out there who would rank me among their most disappointing experiences (take my word for it … you don’t need to ask around or anything).

But Lucas’ threat in the New York Times never again to make another summer blockbuster certainly won’t stop him from endlessly repackaging the old blockbusters and asking people to pay full price for them again and again.

Hollywood has followed Lucas’ lead on this in a big way.

“The Lion King” and “Beauty and the Beast” were recently re-released in 3-D and the next two years at the multiplex will see a flood of familiar films onto which a new coat of paint has been slapped, including “Finding Nemo,” “Titanic,” “Monsters Inc.” and “The Little Mermaid.”

By the end of last summer, many analysts were saying that shoddy 3-D was actually hurting, not helping, the movie industry.

So these attempts to gussy up former hits and convince moviegoers to fork over another sawbuck or so to see them again smacks of cynicism, delusion and desperation to me.

Why would anyone want to return to the multiplex to watch a movie they already own, in a format they have never liked?

If any of these movies make a significant amount of money the second time around, it will be a triumph of marketing over common sense.