Would the Prequels have been better with Directors other than GL?

I think ROTS is great. It's everything the other two aren't.

But bearing in mind he (GL) had so much to do in getting there. The new digital filming, CGI leaps, editing etc etc. Would the first two have benefited from other directors? So he could have concentrated on that while they concentrated on the films?

After all wasn't this the reason he gave up ESB and ROTJ because he was too busy by his own admission setting up Lucasfilm and ILM etc etc and producing.

I think Spielberg would have loved to do one. I think he loves the series. He's always backed GL on the films. He wasn't bad at working with him either see Indy.

Plus look at the OT DVD to see all the Directors who've been influenced. Fincher, Scott, Cameron and Jackson etc. I'm sure any director worth his salt would have sold his soul to get the gig.

 

Spielberg was originally tapped to direct Return of the Jedi. But Lucas couldn't legally hire him as he had dropped out of the DGA at that time.

As for the prequels. I think if he had hired a secondary director to help the actors with their lines, it would have gone a lot more smoothly. I also think the prequels would have benefitted with a better editor. Especially in AOTC. The pacing of the drama:action sequences are really off-putting.

 

I've always liked the way peter Jackson handles things, but Spielberg might be better for the whoel Sci-Fi thing.

 

I always believe that its the creator's vision to take control of the directing but unfortunately Lucas has really deteriorated as a director of actors. NPR had a report where they played footage from American Gaffity and compared it to the new Star Wars. Its REALLY scary how stale these new characters are compared to the ones in his old movies.

Lucas's greatest achievement was realizing this ambitious sci fi opera but as a result, he lost touch with humans. So to answer your question, yes he would have benefitted with new directors. I would not think of Speilberg because I think he has some of the same problems. Irving Kershner was great. Coppola would also be great.

 

It's a shame he wouldn't consider it. He could do the three after ROTJ then. But it's not to be.

In a way that's not a bad thing. But it would have been interesting to see another Directors take on it. Especially from the CGI and acting POV's

 

I think so.

Lucas's forte is not pulling performances out of actors. And Hayden and Natalie are both far greater than AOTC indicated.

I also think whoever he got to direct/help cast for TPM would've picked the other kid in the auditions rather than Jake Lloyd.

 

No.

Star Wars is Lucas' story, and Lucas' vision, and I think he is the best person to do the job.

After all wasn't this the reason he gave up ESB and ROTJ because he was too busy by his own admission setting up Lucasfilm and ILM etc etc and producing.

Not really. The main reason he gave up the director's chair on ESB and ROTJ was because the filming and production of ANH was such a horrible experience for him. It's well-documented, so I don't really need to go into the details here about the difficulties on location, and Lucas nearly having a heart attack.

I think people vastly underestimate Lucas' involvement in ROTJ and (particularly) ESB. Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan wrote the stories and screenplays for both films. Leigh Brackett is credited for co-writing ESB's screenplay, but none of her work in writing the first draft actually made it into the film. Lucas and Kasdan re-wrote ESB's screenplay from scratch, and Lucas gave the late Brackett credit, rather than himself, out of respect for her contributions.

Kershner and Marquand are credited with directing ESB and ROTJ, but Lucas was nearly as involved in the production as he was with ANH. Lucas was present for all filming, other than the location shooting in Norway for ESB (correct me if I'm wrong and he was absent for other stretches of filming). From my understanding, Kershner and Marquand were the ones actually directing the actors (with a great deal of input from Lucas), but Lucas pretty much directed the effects shots and the assembly of the picture on his own (with input from each director).

Kershner did get better performances out of the actors in ESB than Lucas did in ANH; his style of working with the actors was one factor, but the actors being more comfortable with their roles and their experiences in filming ANH likely contributed as well. I think Marquand got worse performances out of most of the actors in ROTJ. I've heard that Lucas directed the Emperor/Luke/Vader scenes and Vader's unmasking as an uncredited second unit, but I can't actually verify that. I think that ROTJ might actually have turned out better if Lucas had directed the whole thing himself.

What many percieve as flat characters and wooden acting in the prequels, I perceive as an intentionally different take on the characters. The prequels take place in a more formal era, and the characters in the story are politicians and members of a knightly order, rather than an idealistic farmboy, a rebel leader, and a charming rogue. The characters in the PT speak more formally, and are more emotionally restrained, and I see that as reflecting the era in which Episodes I to III are set, and as reflecting the more formal nature of the characters' roles in society, rather than "flat and wooden."

 

Irvin Kershner is still alive and kicking, is he not? He should have done the prequels, especially AOTC and maybe ROTS.

 

I also think whoever he got to direct/help cast for TPM would've picked the other kid in the auditions rather than Jake Lloyd.

Robin Gurland?

Perhaps she would have picked one of the other kids we saw in the TPM documentary, but those other kids struck me as being too... well, they came across as though they were acting, rather than being genuine. One of the three finalists came across as way too slick and smooth, in my opinion. Too adult-like. The other seemed really good at accurately repeating his lines, but just didn't really have much enthusiasm.

I can see from Lloyd's audition why Lucas picked him. He came across more like a typical kid than a kid trying to act like an adult, and he was more spontaneous and enthusiastic. Seemed to enjoy trying to do it his way, rather than just the way he was instructed. I think Lloyd did a fine job playing the good-natured, enthusiastic, innocent child. Hayley Joel Osment, for example, was (and I'm sure still is) a fantastic actor, but I have trouble seeing him as a "typical kid." He was great as the troubled, mature-beyond-his-years child, but I don't think he would have been right for Anakin. And that one kid that came across as very professional, slick, and smooth, reminded me a lot of Osment.

 

Dont blame Lucas for this.

He wanted Steven Speilberg and Ron Howard to each taek one prequel, and he take the last one, but they both pretty much said 'your the only one who can do it george!"

 

" What many percieve as flat characters and wooden acting in the prequels, I perceive as an intentionally different take on the characters. The prequels take place in a more formal era, and the characters in the story are politicians and members of a knightly order, rather than an idealistic farmboy, a rebel leader, and a charming rogue. The characters in the PT speak more formally, and are more emotionally restrained, and I see that as reflecting the era in which Episodes I to III are set, and as reflecting the more formal nature of the characters' roles in society, rather than "flat and wooden." "

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. I somewhat agree, though I'll have to think about it more.

 

someone who actually cared about acting, emotional involvement and Star Wars as a whole should have written and directed the prequels.

I of course cannot document this, but my opinion as to why Spielberg didn't take any of the prequels especially TPM, is because for a long time many of Lucas' closest friends like Spielberg, had been really trying hard to get him to direct again.

BTW, forget about Spielberg (though I would've liked to have seen him directing at least one) or Cameron or Fincher directing them... what about Francis Ford Coppola?

He has a great operatic style that would have been perfectly suited for an Ep 2 or Ep 3. He's also a much better writer than Lucas.

Which leads me to my biggest gripe about Lucas. Fine, George, you want to direct, then direct.

But when you constantly harp on about being a bad writer and hating the writing process.... WHY DIDN'T YOU HIRE SOMEONE WHO COULD!!!!????

A 1st grader could have written better films than these.

 

Lucas wrote and directed his studio first feature film at the age of 25, after a stellar career as an award-winning student filmmaker.

Now at 61, he's enjoying the biggest success of a hugely successful career filled with high points, technical innovation, numerous awards and unequaled financial success.

No, I don't think a first-grader could have done better. Nor could a lot of George's critics.
Making a 113 million dollar movie requires a lot more than a know-it-all attitude. You've got to be able to deliver the goods.

George was the perfect writer and director for the prequels. He is Mr. Star Wars.

By the way, he directed all the throne room scenes in ROTJ. Nice job, George.

 

I would've given Spielberg "Attack of the Clones," but that's it. I love "The Phantom Menace" and "Revenge of the Sith." "Clones" was good, however it would have been a masterpiece with Spielberg's look and touch.

Speaking of Spielberg, did anyone beside me think the scene in which Yoda leaves Kashyyyk had a very vintage Spielberg feel? Like something from "E.T.," "Close Encounters," or even "Jaws"--with the music, and the stars. Not to mention the battle scenes reminded me of "Saving Private Ryan."

 

Personally, I think the actor's performance's are less the director's responsibility than the actors. The director is more responsible for the way the scenes are shot, the atmosphere, the angles, etc. Lucas is better at that visual stuff than Speilberg, and MUCH better visually than Kershner.

Unno

 

As I quote from my Entertainment Weekly of May 20th,

He even ashed (half jokingly) Spielberg and Ron Howard to each take a prequel.....But they said no. Both had been on him to resume directing; before Phantom Menace, Lucas has not directed a film since Star Wars .

There, now I'm sick of hearing about what if so and so directed the prequels. I'd have to agree with two academy award winning directors here, it was about time for GL to get back in the saddle.

 

If I had to choose who directed Attack of the Clones and The Phantom Menace, I would pick Spielberg for TPM and Kershner for Attack of the Clones.

Spielberg would've been able to create the perfect balance between politics of the Republic and the storyline of Star Wars. With his ingenious methods of bringing Special Effects shots seem astonishing real, he would've stretched out the Battle of the Naboo Plains and the Battle Over Naboo to seem a little more dramatic and portray Anakin more accurately as a little boy destined to become Vader. It would have been very good.

Kershner could've goen out with a bang, should he had chosen to direct Attack of the Clones. As we have seen in ESB, he is very good with romantic dialogue and action at the same time and would've brought a lot the the table in regards to the Anakin and Padme love story and the beginning of the Clone Wars. Expect a longer duel between Dooku and Anakin, with the same results, but it would've looked somewhat more like the ESB duel between Vader and Luke, which was very good.

Both directors would've brought a lot to the table for both movies and working off of GL's magnificent storyline and screenplay, I think we could've seen the Prequel Trilogy make the LOTR Trilogy look like Saturday morning cartoons.

 

Yeah I think they would. Since ROTJ and ESB were not directed by George Lucas and they were the two best movie of the Saga

 

I can't stand these people who try to defend the Anakin and Padme (Episode II) deliveries saying "they've never been in love before, so they are awkward" or "they are both more regal than normal people, so they speak differently".

That's total nonsense.

When Padme was in her Queen gear, or in front of the Senate, or talking to Palpatine or something, yes, I can buy that she'd speak in a certain tone because of the situation.

But not when she's in closed quarters. Not when Anakin is talking to Obi-Wan (who he, as we're told, is great friends with) in a room by themselves. The fact remains that both Hayden and Natalie can act, but were given poor direction in Episode II.

Jake Lloyd could not act at age 9. I'm not arguing this, it's a fact. He's not "genuine". He's a 9-year old kid who is being told to say things. There's about 5 child actors in my lifetime that I've seen and thought "I totally buy into everything they're saying". Jake Lloyd was not and is not one of them.

I am all for other people having taken on Episodes I and II (perhaps, also, a REAL director for Episode VI) because Lucas's forte is NOT directing actors and getting performances out of them. He can write stories, he can design worlds, he can do a host of things...but he can't direct as well as most of his peers. He just can't. He also is too prominent in Lucasfilm (for a reason, of course) for anyone to say "no" to him. Employing people from Young Indiana Jones and TV commercials and a host of other less-than-well-known-projects enables him to go through an entire project without running into any disputes over anything.

When he angered the Director's Guild and the rest of Hollywood, he shot himself in the foot for acquiring a real director for Episode VI. Richard Marquand is great for whatever he did before Episode VI, but, he couldn't have been Top 10 on the list for optimal directors for a Star Wars film. He was the 1983 version of Rick McCallum, but just with the "director" label. He would do everything asked of him by Lucas, and never question anything, even if it seemed out-of-place or wrong.

The same thing echoed itself in the prequels. Lucas had grown so accustomed to how things went on Episode VI, he employed the same tactics in Episode I, except he just acted as director, officially. The films are eerily similar in tone and structure. George slowly grew to realize what worked better and more effectively as he got through Episode II and ultimately, got pretty close to perfect for Episode III.

The thing is, as I'm sure someone has noted, George planned to, himself, direct Episode IV and then Episode III, and to let all his directing friends (Spielberg, Coppola, Howard, etc.) handle all the others in between. So George would do the first and last movies made, but arguably the most important neighboring chapters.

George worked well as director on Episode IV because he had a large group of people working WITH him who had no idea who he was, what he was capable of, or what he planned to do. They worked WITH him, not FOR him.

I think George realized that, after the critical and popular reactions to Episode I and II (both positive and negative), that he needed to employ more of a "united" approach to the production of Episode III...and he clearly did. I don't believe there was a dialogue coach on the first two prequels, but there was on Episode III. Episodes I and II didn't have real editors; Episode III did. Things like that.

So, all in all, from a cinematic sense, having real directors would've benefitted the first two prequels. I don't care what you think of the dialogue in the films, legitimate direction and the subsequent acting makes ANY script seem good.

You need headstrong actors or actors older than George for them to get away with a good performance, in the prequels, at least. Christopher Lee, Ian McDiarmid, Liam Neeson, and Ewan McGregor were the best acting parts of the prequels. Seriously, they were flawless. But, why do you think that is? It's because they know enough about acting to be able to craft th

 

Yes.

 

This was once a possibility as Lucas wasn't sure he was even going to direct any of them. He then changed his mind and was only going to direct the first one to set the tone for the other directors to follow. Obviously, he changed his mind about that too. I believe he said it was just easier for him to do it as he would not have to explain the new film making technology to other directors.

 

Really high quality discussion in this thread. It's nice.

Personally, I wouldn't have minded other directors for the first two movies. It might have made certain parts a bit more interesting. A better editor for EP II would have helped a bit too. That movie was exceedingly choppy. But I feel very strongly that Lucas should have directed III, especially now that I've seen it. It's really his movie, through and through. It's the movie he wanted to make since he EP VI.

 

Would the Prequels have been better with Directors other than GL?

No because the Prequels are perfect as they are, and nothing can make them better than they are now.

 

Speilberg would have ruined them. Look what he did when he got hold of AI. That was terrible when he finished.

 

Since ROTJ and ESB were not directed by George Lucas and they were the two best movie of the Saga

Actually, ANH and ESB are considered the best of the OT from what I've seen. ROTJ has a powerful emotional high, but it's considered lacking in many respects. Actually, the most highly praised scenes (the Vader/Luke/Emperor sequences) are rumored to have been directed by Lucas.


Would the prequels would have been better with someone other than Lucas in the big seat? Maybe, maybe not. We can speculate, but all directors brings both beneficial and detracting qulaities to any movie. Some say Peter Jackson would do well for SW - I disagree. I think his method of filming, particularly his choice of camera angling, would clash with styles familiar to SW fans and the movies.

As it is, I like this movies. They aren't perfect, but that's true of any film.