Discussion Would you like to see one director for the entire trilogy? Or different ones like the OT

One director could provide a sense of continuity, but I think it would be best to put the appropriate director for each part of the saga.

 

I'll wait and see how JJ does with VII to decide if I want him to direct VIII and IX.

 

I'll wait and see as well how JJ does with VII before I decide if I want him to direct VIII and IX.

 

This is where I'm at.

 

I would acknowledge that it would probably work fine if there were different directors just like the OT, but given my choice I would prefer the same director through the whole trilogy-style and continuity would be easier to keep together that way, IMO.

 

I really like the fact that each OT film feels different from the next. Each one offers something different, and each one is memorable because of it. Three more new Star Wars "flavors" would be awesome.

 

As a DGA director myself, I would prefer one director for all three films. I like a consistent tone and I honestly think the result will be better with one guy behind the camera for these three. That being said, it would be fine and appropriate to move on from there where each stand-alone film and any future "episodes" would be directed by someone new. I at least think at some level there must be consistency, whether that's Lucas behind the scenes making sure the stories are great, or whether that's a great producer like Kathleen Kennedy who is really hands-on and almost a producer "auteur," as we've seen with a Joel Silver for instance. Someone needs to be at the helm making sure the films are true to Star Wars.

Unfortunately, there's no way around the gradual decline of how much "Star Wars" it really is, in essence. In other words, these three are going to be the most "Star Wars" to me because Lucas has provided an "extensive" story outline, because John Williams will hopefully score them all, and because it sounds like at least some previous Star Wars actors would return. Fast forward 20 years from now, there won't be any Lucas story there, no John Williams, no original (i.e. Episodes I - VI) actors present, etc. They will still be Star Wars movies in name, and they could even be incredible, mind-blowing films that redefine what Star Wars is all about, but certainly they won't be the Star Wars we know today.

 

I'd like to see how JJ does first, if he does a good job then there is no point in fixing something that isn't broken I'd say.

 

While it is possible for one director to hit it out of the park on all three, I feel that all you have to do is look at how the PT and OT turned out. As previously mentioned, Lucas directed the 3 PT movies and look how that turned out while three different directors did the OT and they turned out much better. If Abrams nails it will VII, I won't object to him staying on. Continuity is usually a good thing.

 

On the other hand, I think the PT has a lot more visual consistency then the OT (look at that Visual Links thread in Saga, for instance). Assuming for the sake of discussion that competence is not an issue - that is, it's a choice between one good directing job throughout or one good directing job per movie - I think I'd prefer for Abrams to stay throughout.

 

I want to see different directors. There's too much good talent out there. I feel we're already bordering on "JJ's voice" overload with him doing both Star Trek and Star Wars.

To me Star Wars is more of a writer-story driven playground than a director-driven playground.

Here's who I want to see do one of the sequels....

SHANE BLACK.

One thing I loved about the Michael Arndt signing was that Arndt was clearly someone who cares deeply and understands how to CONSTRUCT a story. He doesn't just string together cool moments, he's trying to tell a story. The way he dissected the structure of the ANH screenplay was masterful.

To me, Shane Black is the equivalent when it comes to directing action. He knows how to CONSTRUCT action sequences, not just orgasm on CG doodads all over the place. I think people are going to be blown away by Iron Man 3.

Here's how AICN describes a full scene they screened from Iron Man 3:
"Whether you know who Shane Black is or not, you'll know after this movie," boasts Feige. Translation: a younger generation weaned on competent-at-best staging augmented by indifferently-slapped-together CG is going to discover that an action sequence can be visually decipherable and emotionally satisfying. Geography counts. It's not about sensory overload; it's about crescendoing from a domestic dust-up between Tony and Pepper Potts (who's steamed that he's gone on television and picked a fight with The Mandarin) to an awkward, where-the-****-did-she-come-from interaction with a newly arrived stranger (Rebecca Hall) to a furious assault on Stark's Malibu mansion. It's wild and cacophonous, but within the devastation it's always clear where each character is (including Stark's mechanical helpers, Dummy and You). As helicopters tear the house apart with missiles and heavy-caliber machine gun fire (think the beachfront assault on Tom Atkins's house in LETHAL WEAPON times a few trillion), Black pulls one unexpected twist after another. It's exhilarating. And there's one totally unexpected move (which Marvel and Disney evidently want us to put out there, so here it comes. Skip the next paragraph if you don't want to know.)



A quote from an interview with Black that shows me he GETS IT:
Black: That was the challenge. Together with these really remarkable artists, animators and people who were available as a resource to me, to not just have scenes where Iron Man flies in, shoots a bolt, it hits somebody, and the guy flies backwards. How do you start to tone the action so it becomes intricate and you don't remember all of it, you just finish the scene and go "Wow!" And then if you go back and look at it, you'll find little pieces in the [sequence] that you forgot were there, that serve as toning mechanisms, as detailing. To me, it was about getting together with these really brilliant people who do a lot of this pre-visualization process at Marvel and just detail the action so that some of it's subjective. You're inside the action, you're inside it with the character as things come at you.
Little bits can put things over the top. Like in THE PERFECT STORM with George Clooney. It's not really an action film, but there's this scene in it where... he looks up at one point, and there's this Rube Goldberg thing that happens where the mast is coming down, and this thing *whoosh* goes by his head like a foot away. It's just a split second, but for some reason, in the midst of everything else, that extra detail sells the action, and you remember the sequence. I think what we have now, hopefully, like Kevin said, are three really memorable sequences. But they also have to be organic. What I hate about action movies is it's "character, character, character - STOP! Action Scene! (Pause) Alright, start the character again." It's got to be one thing, and that's the challenge. But it's great working with Downey. Downey won't just do an action scene. Every action scene he does is a character piece. That's why I think IRON MAN 3 has advantage over [other action films]. Like, I enjoyed FAST FIVE, but there are the characters, and then they'll just start an action scene. You can take one action scene and put it in the middle, and take the one from the middle and put it at the end. We don't do that here.

F'in perfect.

Reminds me of ESB, my favorite Star Wars movie... Here's what I remember about the lightsaber duel.... when Vader and Luke activate their lightsabers... the way Luke keeps stepping closer, like he's trying to intimidate Vader but Vader is just toying with him... the way Vader uses the force to flip a switch and says "all too easy", the way Vader hits the railing with his lightsaber and reacts when Luke scores a small hit on him.

Kathleen Kennedy, HIRE THIS MAN.