CT What if Lucas directed the entire trilogy?

It was Lucas, but I think the final cut is basically a joint effort. Kershner's was too long, then Lucas overreacted and cut it too short. They found a balance between them, but in the end it was Lucas with the final cut.

I agree that Thunderball is better. But I don't like either of them, frankly.[/quote]

 

Doesn't matter, sometimes a particular director is the perfect person for that particular project. I think of the movie 'The Fugitive' directed by Andrew Davis, as that is one of my favorite movies. I looked at what he had directed, and nothing great stood out. But you have to give him kudos for 'The Fugitive' the same way you have to give kudos to Kersh for directing Empire.

 

[/quote]

Never Say Never Again is just blahh, Connery is just too old lol, but I enjoyed thunderball. Quite frankly all the novels were better than the films. But that's usually how it works.

 

I give all due credit to George. THX looked great.
But... I suspect that SW was massively enhanced by some very talented editors. Especially Marcia Lucas.

 

Well, Lucas himself was chief among those editors, though I will admit that the OT by far has better editors on board with him than the PT. I love the Prequels to death, and Ben Burtt is okay as an editor, but his real talent is as a sound man. Too bad Lucas didn't reassemble some of the OT editing crew (minus Marcia, who divorced him, of course).

 

I wonder if there's also an element of in the OT he was releasing his first attempt at a blockbuster film (SW) and then working with his old college professor (ESB) and so was more willing to listen to suggestions/reason. Whereas by the time of the PT he's had 20 years of people telling him he's a genius film-maker and won't listen to anyone. That sounds a lot more critical of him than I actually am, but it's how I think the difference can be explained away.

 

Except with the Prequels, or at least with TPM, he seemed to be going overboard trying to get other peoples' opinions and collaboration. He sought out Lawrence Kasdan and Frank Darabont to co-write the screenplay with him, but they both thought it was fine without them getting involved. He screened the film for colleagues and re-edited some sequences based on their suggestions (in the commentary he mentions that the music coming in when Anakin's pod-racer flames out was Ron Howard's idea, I think, to up the stakes). Even letting Ben Burtt do all the editing, and not just the sound, strikes me as much of doing a favor to his old friend as letting his old college professor direct ESB.

So really, he listened to a lot of people. He just didn't listen to all of the fanboys playing monday-morning-quarterback.

 

Lucas was a very good film director in the 70's -

THX, American Graffiti and Star Wars are an amazing start to a film making career. I don't doubt that had he directed the sequels they'd have been great. Jedi would probably have been much better.

If he'd carried on directing in the years between the CT and PT, there's no doubt that the PT would have been far better.

I think that by RotS he was rediscovering his directing chops.

There's no doubt that Star Wars derailed and destroyed the career of a super-talented film director. I'm sure he must wonder sometimes about the choices he's made.

 

I think in more sensible terms you can watch IV to VI and then then go back and watch III if your interested and throw the other 2 in then bin. Or failing that use them as door stops. Either ways cool.

 

There are few minutes of good bits between I & II - but a few minutes do not good films make.

 

Lucas directed "ANH". I haven't heard any real complaints about his work for that movie. How would "ESB" turned out? I don't know. And I'm not going to make any assumptions.

Superior remake of "Thunderball"? Uh . . . that's an opinion I cannot share. I thought "NSNA" was utter crap.

That depends . . . if Pegg was telling the truth, considering what a rabid OT fanboy he is. And someone else on this message board had posted a dim view of ESB.


Is the prevailing view is if Lucas had directed all three movies of the OT, it would have been superior? I don't know if I can accept that view, considering my high regard of the PT. And Lucas had directed all 3 movies of the second trilogy.

 

Star Wars was an amazing movie, but Empire was special. Empire made the Star Wars universe what it is. GL signed off on the holiday special, the Ewok adventures, droids, and Ewoks, (just to name a few of the really awful SW products out there,) and there's no way he would have taken the time and the care necessary to wait for the actors to render a proper performance. Star Wars would have been dead by the end of Jedi. There would not have been enough of a fanbase left in the 90s when those Zahn books came out to reignite the fans. We survived the vastly underwhelming Jedi on the strength of Empire. Had that been a GL film, I think it would have been all over.

 

I'm amazed that anyone could think this!

Empire was a far less successful film at the box office than Star Wars.

If there had been no sequel to Star Wars, it would still have legions of fans to this day. In terms of sheer numbers flocking to the cinema, Star Wars may be the biggest film ever made. Certainly in the US.

Empire was a great film, but Star Wars, the original, is the whole thing, really. Everything's there. Everything in the Star Wars Universe can be extrapolated from that first movie - it creates a fictional world more effectively than any film before or since. In a way, every subsequent film diminishes its impact as a playground for the imagination. Empire accomplished nothing on that scale. It was just very competently made, scripted etc.

The first film is pretty much a work of genius, a total one-off. And no-one else could have done it other than George Lucas.

 

Yeah, I don't really understand the correlation between Lucas' abilities and his signing off on all the ancilary shows. In fact, it's right there in your description-- he "signed off" on them. They didn't take up time while he was making the films. In fact, most of them were made after the trilogy.

Also-- let's be very honest here. Most of the actors in Empire would've easily been able to deliver their performances without much direction anyway. Harrison was ad-libbing everywhere in ANH, and Lucas was happy to let him-- we still would've gotten "I know". He got Kersh as director so he could micromanage the effects and visuals of the film in general, and basically not feel like he was going to almost have a heart-attack like on the last film.

 

I definitely agree with much of what you say about the original film. it was perfect - amazing - a one-off. What has become clearer and clearer to me is the amazing contribution made by others - which has been unfairly played-down. Not just the ILM people, Gary Kurtz etc., but also the editors - especially Marcia Lucas who seems to have virtually ceased to exist from history.

She had a huge positive impact on not only the editing, the script, plot etc., but was hugely supportive to George all-round. This really opened my eyes:
http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

John[/quote]

 

I personally think your underestimating Kerschner there. If Lucas had directed Empire it would been a totally different film. Obviously the story would've been the same, but the whole feel and tone it of it wouldve been different. Those little golden moments (Han with Leia 'I'm nice men', closing the doors on the Hoth base, amongst many) Lucas wouldn't of had it in him to portray them the way they needed to be. Empire transcends Star Wars. People I know who aren't necessarily Star Wars fans think Empire is a good film on its own because of the human element it has at its core. None of the other films has that.

 

It's nice to have the "human element" in ESB, but honestly, the movie would've been a success even without milking the romance and drama for all it was worth (and if it spared us the awful mugging and hammy delivery of bits like "Who's scruffy lookin'?" or stupid touches like Artoo "standing on his tippy-toes", it would've been worth it). At the end of the day you still have the same actors, and given their relationship with Lucas on the first one they could've easily gotten near enough to what they did here that at the very least nobody would've minded.

 

Lucas could not have portrayed that romance in the same way. And the touches you mention are conducive to the characters. R2 is a droid. But he also has a personality (like 3PO) and that's what makes him endearing. Otherwise he may aswell have just been a food blender on wheels. He's curious as to what's going on in there? It's not stupid. As for Han, he's playing with Leia. What's he supposed to be, stoic? He fancies the woman and he's trying endear himself to her. THAT'S his character. It's not muggy or hammy.

 

But it's not a director's job to portray the romance. It's the actors', and frankly I don't expect there would've been enough of a difference between them being directed under Lucas or Kersh for it to matter. Harrison and Carrie were strong enough in their roles that they would've sold the romance just fine to audiences, Harrison especially as Lucas gave him free reign with ad-libbing when he wanted the last time. Unfortunately there's a point where it can go too far, which is what Kersh allows in the "scruffy lookin'" scene, which is just overkill in terms of a character trying to ingratiate themselves. Same thing with Artoo's tippy-toes, which oversells a character that already has enough personality with his scripted actions.

Little touches can help sell the human element, sure. But they can also sometimes go too far and expose the artificiality in the story in a way that more reigned-in performances don't, even if they're a little less interesting. Kersh's allowances don't derail ESB entirely for me, but they do make it the most annoying SW movie for me, personally. There's just too much shtick for me to take seriously.

 

What? Offcourse its the directors job. Otherwise just let the actors decide everything the shot entails. Look at Gladiator as an example. Would Maximus have been such an endearing character had Russel Crowe been calling the shots to how he was visually portrayed? Actors need good direction. After all, their not on a stage in a theatre No. It was Ridley Scott's vision which produced a great performance out of him. And Robert de Niro maybe a great actor but he needs a good director (and script) to extract a great performance from him. Anyway back to Empire. Remember this was the 2nd film and the characters needed to be expanded upon. And it was done perfectly.

 

If we're talking about a director guiding an actor's performance and giving them good feedback, then sure, Kersh could do a somewhat better job, but again I'll say that if the actors were good enough to deliver the performances they gave in ANH under Lucas' more hands-off approach, then they would've done just as well again. But if we're talking about how a director covers an actor's performance, independent of their involvement with it, purely through visually, how it's shot and edited, then frankly I only think having Lucas on-set could've only improved things.

 

If that's the case, then why wasn't Lucas's style and influence as a director apparent in the PT? Yeah just let the actors get on with it. They were good actors in the PT. So what happened?

 

Depends on the kinds of characters they're playing. The OT heroes were rebels, idealists, rogues, and were expressive. The PT heroes were either civilized, status quo types like most of the Jedi or the Senators, or else they were angst-ridden and hormonal, purposefully awkward. So really, the thing to take issue with is not the acting itself, but the decision to make the characters what they were, which is something I don't have an issue with.

 

Vader as a spotty, angst ridden, annoying teenager coupled to no discernable direction from the director? Yeah that worked. And bland, insipid, boring politicians (they're allowed to have a personality you know) worked even better. Add to the mix monks who were as deep and interesting as a bucket of wall paper paste and you've got a winner. Humanity 0 Nothingness 3. Great fx though.

 

I'll still take that over "who's scruffy lookin'?" paired with a delivery that's past its sell-by date.