Why didn't Kershner direct Ep 6?

I'm in LA now, and I've been meeting film professionals among others. This has been a fruitful trip, and I have learned quite a bit about film, especially about advancing my dream.

Anyway, yet another question, again about Star Wars. Irvin Kershner directed "The Empire Strikes Back", but Richard Marquand directed "Return of the Jedi". I understand from reading the various news stories that directing "Empire" took a lot out of him, so he decided to take a break. Is that the reason or is there another reason why producers switch directors?
 
As with most things in business, and even more so when combining business with entertainment, you will never really know the true answer.

...directing "Empire" took a lot out of him

What took a lot out of him - Too much oversight from producers? The weight of the responsibilities? The egos of the actors? Dealing with union everything? Maybe he bruised a producers ego. Maybe he didn't kiss enough ass. Maybe he kicked the wrong ass or pissed off the wrong person. Come up with 5,000 other possible pressure points. Now add in the fact that he has a personal life and factor in another 5,000 possible trouble spots. They will ALL have an influence to a greater or lesser degree. And no one will ever admit to what really happened for fear of offending someone important. The term "It's Complicated" is squared and cubed when you get into business, artistic and personal relationships in the film industry. C'mon, you've already seen it a little, now cube it to the number of people involved in the project. You have ten people involved in the project? 10 x 10 x 10 = 1,000 possible issues just for you. Each person in the project has their 1,000 possible issues too. Thoroughly mix the 1,000 issues of all 10 people well and get thoroughly confused. Now imagine a cast and crew of several hundred. That's the "wonder" of filmmaking, dealing with all of that and still coming out with a good project.
 
Lucas said he didn't want to use the same director. That he wanted
someone else to direct.
 
I wonder if this is the norm, and, if so, why.
I don't believe there is a “norm”. The last trilogy of “Batman” films
were all directed by the same person. The last trilogy of “Star Wars”
films were all directed by the same person. The las four “Harry Potter”
films were all directed by the same person.

But then you'll find other franchises that were all directed by different
people. Like the next trilogy of “Star Wars” films.
 
OK. Thanks once again.

I wonder why they would find a different director each time. I mean, it makes sense to keep the same person for all three films in the trilogy.
 
Last edited:
OK. Thanks once again.

I wonder why they would find a different director each time. I mean, it makes sense to keep the same person for all three films in the trilogy.
Does it?

Were SW: Episodes I, II, and III better than V and VI for having the same director?
Was there anything wrong with the most recent Bond films because there were
different directors? As we saw with SW bringing on a new director for "Empire"
resulted in a very good movie. I think "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is a very
good movie - great choice to bring on a different director.

What trilogy's have you liked that were all directed by the same person?
 
What trilogy's have you liked that were all directed by the same person?

Back to the Future! (Zemeckis)

All four Lethal Weapons were directed by Richard Donner, too.

And, we can't forget Lord of the Rings w/ Jackson!

Some oddball examples, but examples nonetheless. I think plenty of directors attempt to stick with their artistic vision of multiple films

Oh - and the Godfather trilogy. All three are Coppola films.
 
Last edited:
I hated sky fall but like the other daniel craig bond films

I really enjoyed Casino Royale, absolutely hated Quantum of Solace, and enjoyed Skyfall even more than Casino Royale. So, I'm sort of split on that...

My understanding, though, is that critics agreed with me, leaning more towards the first and third of his films. If I remember, Quantum was a bit of a flop. It's the only movie I've ever fallen asleep in the theater for - and I was able to stay awake for all of the second 'Hobbit' after binge watching all four previous films the same day...
 
Can't think of one, but that leads to the question of why NOT having the same director would lead to good results. I mean, where's the flaw in my logic?

And why do they switch directors anyway?
The flaw in your logic is "Nobody knows anything." There is no, one, answer
to your question. Each production is different. Each decision is different. Each
producer is different. And they each have different needs and tastes and
opinions. Sometimes the director of the first film does not believe there is a
need to repeat himself. Sometimes the producer want's to explore a different
vision. Sometimes the director of the first film is not available when the second
films needs to go into production.

I could come up with 1,000 "sometimes" possibilities. Why can't you?

Excellent examples Beatlesfan.
 
Back
Top