LORD FOUL'S BRAIN wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think Irvin Kershner did a great job with Episode V but knowing that Lucas had wanted his good friend Spielberg to direct makes me wonder how different the other two original films would have been.
Well, that's just it: never mind Spielberg, Kershner did such a great job on Empire Strikes Back that I've often wondered how much better Return of the Jedi would've been if he had directed it as well. I wonder if Kershner would've agreed to do it (if Lucas had asked him to), or if after Empire he was completely burned out on Star Wars.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the latest 3 installments would have been remarkably better films than they turned out to be if Spielberg had been at the helm. (ESPECIALLY EPISODE I)
Well at least they wouldn't have been any worse.
Well, at least they wouldn't have been any worse - haha, nice qualifier there. I think the quality of the films would've depended on which director showed up: saccharine Spielberg or edgy Spielberg. Mind you, it's not an absolute distinction, he's just edgier one day and more saccharine the next.
I'm also not quite ready to dismiss Lucas's directorial skills. In fact, I think he has great flair for dramatic visuals. Phantom Menace has a whole lotta flaws, but IMO it is Lucas's directing that keeps the movie from being worse than it is...and I know that many probably disagree with that. I'm saying that in terms of exciting, epic action set pieces, Lucas still delivers the goods as well as Spielberg or any other director in the business. If Spielberg had directed, what he would have improved upon was all the other stuff, like tightening up the verbiage in the script and allowing more naturalistic dialogue to flow among the actors - more realistic interaction. Although Kershner already did well in providing that atmosphere for the actors in Empire. I'm referring more to the "boring speech" syndrome we see in the prequels that Spielberg would surely have tweaked or dropped altogether.