Ridley Scott Thinks Disney Should Hire More Experienced Directors For Star Wars

Ridley Scott has more than earned his right to speak with authority about Hollywood's approach to producing big-budget sci-fi films, and he absolutely knows it. In a recent interview with Vulture, the director shared his thoughts about Star Wars — arguably the most popular sci-fi franchise in the world - and he did not mince words.

Though The Force Awakens, Rogue One, and The Last Jedi all directly connect to the first six Star Wars films in significant ways, Disney's made it clear that it has every intention of creating more and more stories set in a galaxy far, far away, eventually leading to a new era of Star Wars stories.

Part of that progress can be seen in the introductions of new characters like Rose and Finn, but what's even more interesting has been Disney's decision to let relatively new directors helm some of the more recent Star Wars films.

When asked whether he would ever consider directing a Star Wars movie, Scott responded with a resounding no and threw quite a bit of shade at Disney in the process. He told Vulture:

I think they like to be in control, and I like to be in control myself. When you get a guy who's done a low-budget movie and you suddenly give him $US180 ($231) million, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's fuckin' stupid. You know what the reshoots cost?

Millions! Millions. You can get me for my fee, which is heavy, but I'll be under budget and on time. This is where experience does matter, it's as simple as that! It can make you dull as dishwater, but if you're really experienced and you know what you're doing, it's fucking essential. Grow into it, little by little. Start low-budget, get a little bit bigger, maybe after $20 million, you can go to $80. But don't suddenly go to $160.

While Scott didn't go so far as to call out any one director in particular, it's worth noting that both Gareth Edwards and Rian Johnson were more popularly known for their work on smaller-budget indie films before directing Rogue One and The Last Jedi, respectively.

Both of those films have done just fine at the box office, so Disney's probably comfortable with its choice of directors so far (and, famously, has no trouble bringing in replacements when it senses trouble).

But you've got to hand it to Scott for his candidness. Don't worry, he's critical of the films he's involved with, too.

[Vulture via /Film]


    Yeah, let’s all take advice from a guy who threw the Alien franchise down the toilet.

      Just like with SW:TLJ, there are those who like and dislike his work. Unlike TLJ senior heads, he has no problems being frank and critical about the process. So yes, we should take his advice because he has demonstrated that he can look with a healthy amount of neutrality on the matter and he has a lot of experience over technical and content subject of the film.

      You can disagree with his take on Alien, just like I can disagree with Disney's take on Star Wars, but you cannot fail him on the subject of how sound and well made (visually, technically and financially) his films are... something that TLJ have failed at.

      Last but not least... can you suggest someone else (aside from yourself of course) who's advice we should be listening to? Because if you cannot, then perhaps all you are having is a rant because you did not like his Alien prequels...

      Ask any film school student out there, who would they prefer to have as their mentor... Ridley Scott or Rian Johnson? :)

        A director is the figure head of a film, they have a hand and a say in everything, but absolute control over nothing. I've hated his recent films (read: everything after Thelma and Louise), and honestly believe his earlier works might have been carried by the teams he worked with (e.g. Set design, Music and Actors in Alien, Same again for Bladerunner, the Script and Actors in Thelma and Louise). If there was a single director that perfectly demonstrates that a director shouldn't be seen as the singular 'author' of a film it's Scott.

        But that's all subjective. I can't say his recent films have been objectively bad, they haven't, but neither can you say TLJ was objectively bad in the same sentence as objectively praising his films. If you mean to imply that they are better financially in some manner (disregarding that I think there's far too little actual information about any of this in regards to either Scott's films or Disney's to say anything with any confidence) that may well be the case, but taste is pretty subjective. For example I thought TLJ was the best Star Wars film yet. While it had massive issues I'd rather see an interesting, flawed take on the series than more of the same - which was exactly what Abrams brought to the table, and he's implicitly the one Disney director Scott isn't criticising in these statements.

        Honestly neither Scott nor Johnson would hold a lot of appeal to me as a film buff or as a media student - one is a director who's quite frequently criticising his peers while his own recent films are widely considered far below the quality of his early work while the other is in my eyes still unproven. If there was someone who I'd take advice from or want to see influence coming filmmakers it'd be Spike Jonze, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Sofia Coppola or Denis Villeneuve - Directors that have consistently put out incredible work that's both fairly financially viable and (subjectively) really interesting. If you ask me Scott's managed to do the former in his recent work, but not the latter.

          A director is the figure head of a film, they have a hand and a say in everything, but absolute control over nothing.

          What? Since when? What are you basing this on?

            While certain directors certainly have less or more control than others, I thought this was the commonly accepted definition of what a Director does - they 'direct'.

            An editor does the actual editing, but the director has a lot of input on what stays or goes (see 'director's cuts' as an example of the difference between A director with near total freedom in the edit as opposed to the theatrical release where the studio heads and editors have a bigger say). The director will advise the actors on how to act, but can't (usually) do the actual acting themselves. The Director will (typically) put together a temp score to which the composer will best try to match their own 'original' compositions (see 2001: A Space Odyssey for a film that actually kept the temp score instead of the original composition). A director will advise writing teams and oversee other aspects of pre-production, but (again, typically) won't actually write the whole film themselves. The director will typically have a lot of say in the way the film will look, but the shots themselves are typically composed by the Director of Photography, who themselves typically don't wield the camera the whole time, but instead delegate that job to the camera operators - and then you have the lighting guys, the set-design team, the wardrobe department, the make-up department etc. etc. etc. The director has a lot of control over all of these aspects in theory, but the reality is that film-making is a collaborative process, and no director, however dictatorial their style (Kubrik to mention one), however involved in every aspect (Woody Allen to mention one) ever has total control.

            The closest you could get to a director with total control over their work is in one-man-show situations, like a YouTube channel where the writing, performance, filming and editing are all handled by a singular individual. Even then though they will see their influence as an individual wane as they establish an audience and seek to please said audience, not to mention the distribution and advertising platforms that publish and promote their work. In this case I'd certainly say that said individual had total control over their work because arguing semantics and trying to dismiss the unfortunately sticky idea of the Auter isn't much fun.
            In every other case though I'd emphatically dismiss both Auter theory (the theory that first placed the director as the singular author of a film) and Death of the Author (the theory that argues a film should be viewed without any regard for the social, political or personal circumstances a film was produced under) because only stupidity lies at either extreme. To deny a director's influence is ridiculous, but to claim a film is only influenced or most importantly is an insult to the work all the other members of the team have put in.

            To answer your questions directly - "Since when?" well, definitions are always changing, and vary greatly in different contexts. Director may well mean something subtley or dramatically different to you, but to me their job is to provide general oversight and guidance in all areas and to co-ordinate the various teams that contribute to a film. I believe this to be true based on my own knowledge of films, how they are made and my limited experience with film-making and film-makers. As to exactly what I'm basing this on see the aforementioned experiences and the courses of film studies I did at Uni.

              Are you studying film at university? Edit - nevermind I see that you have.

              BTW - Full disclosure. I am a director, I'm definitely not Ridley Scott's level, not yet, but I do control every aspect of my films to the extent that budget and time allows. If people can't achieve what I know is possible, we replace them and find someone who can.

              It is a collaborative process but the producer and director set the tempo. They are the two most important people involved. They are the ones who oversee the project from inception to completion.

              That's why I was surprised (shocked actually) when you said the director is a figurehead. If the director doesn't go to the set, the film doesn't get made. No-one else can makes the necessary decisions. I'm sure it's not like that on every set, but it has been that way on every set I've been on.

                I shouldn't have used figurehead, that term does carry notions with it that I didn't intend. I do think a director is damn important, but I have major issues with a lot of what Scott is saying and has said in the past as well as the implicit line of thought that declares the director as the singular author of a film that others in the comments have brought up. Perhaps I should have gone with general of an army or a similar metaphor, I certainly didn't mean to imply that they are merely decorative as I now realise it sounds like I did.

                On another note I look like a major asshole telling a director what it is they do, you without doubt know more than I do in that field and in film-making as a whole, so apologies for that. I'm hoping to be an editor, so I probably carry a little baggage with a perceived lack of credit going towards the film-makers that aren't Directors or Actors. So yeah, sorry for that - between the initial phrase and subsequently explaining your own job to you I'd be pretty pissed if I were in your shoes.

                  Hahaha. It's okay. I don't think you're an asshole. And the thing about Ridlley that I've noticed, is that he has a VERY healthy ego. He's very happy to talk about himself and all the things he can do.

                  I personally don't put my name at the start of the film. You know where it say "A so-and-so film"? I just feel that's way too egotistical. Because you're right. It's a collaborative process. I can't make the film without my team and it seems really presumptuous to talk about it like I have. A lot of people in the industry don't seem to have that problem though.

          In my opinion Scott have started treating film-making more like a business (and possibly a hobby) than a production of art. As a fan (please do not weaponise that word) that have followed his career I can see it and my opinion of his films is not blinded by any perceived (though not existing) loyalty.

          That being said, in your post you are making accusations about his work that need citations in order to have any weight, and at the same time you are sharing your subjective opinions to back up other comments. It is not how I would imagine a discussion that aims to remain neutral should be conducted. Please see my original post, I avoided making subjective statements.

          I disagree with you on a number of points raised but those are subjective points, so I will not engage in discussing them in public forum. That being said, if you are ever in Western Australia I will buy you a beer and gladly talk to you, face to face about the above in much greater detail (subjective content included).

          In the end the problem with everything is that we no longer judge any work objectively. That is, and as an example, we judged Prometheus as Alien film, because we wanted it to be just that and not because we were asked to. This is quite similar to how we judge TLJ, everyone judges it as Star Wars film, the problem is that no one can agree on what Star Wars is actually about :)

      Noting I know little and care little about alien, but didnt he only direct the the first one and the newest one? Like, hes not listed as director or producer for any of the other films.

      He didn’t do anything of the sort, the people who ruined it were the so-called fans. A bit like Star Wars fans, are they really fans of the franchise or fans of the first two movies.

      To some people there hasn’t been a good Alien film since Aliens what 30 years ago?! At what point do you stop blaming the creatives and think maybe it’s just your own tastes and expectations. Likewise Star Wars Empire for some.

        the people who ruined it were the so-called fans

        The people who ruined a film were the ones who had nothing to do with the film itself aside from representing the target demographic?

          no one targets all the armchair film experts who think they can all write the next film in a long franchise better than expert film makers, if they havent found satisfaction in 30 years, its safe to say they are fans of Alien and Aliens, not the franchise. These films werent made for them.

          Even an average film of his is thoroughly beats anything armchair geniuses can come up with it. Because at the end of the day even a flawed film offers the world of cinema something. Unlike the Star Wars and Alien fans who havent like a film since their second ones, they are just jaded, cynical, uncompromising, with skyhigh expectations no earthly bound director can ever match. if it hasnt happened in 30 years, hate to break it to you, its never going to happen.

          Give me a film maker who tries something different, and misses a few marks along the way, that one who plays it safe.

            Your right, nobody targets the arm chair experts...
            That's because they didn't make the film and "targeting" unrelated individuals who upset you with Internet comments, would be insane....

            Jaded and cynical is an understatement, your talking about going after innocent folks with opinions and implying your the only one fighting the good fight.

            You are still my favourite troll, Don Quixote.

            Tough to admit huh...

              "innocent folks with opinions and implying your the only one fighting the good fight." please spare me, I am not going after anyone, possibly their ideas a little, but I am interesting hearing things I DONT agree with with. because that is how adults communicate.

              maybe open your eyes to the way people's opinions work online. A bunch of people hiding behind usernames making snide comments about how everything is like the 'worse thing EVER' whether it is movies, games, tv episodes, hell even politics. Check out facebook feeds of anything ranging from ABC news or BBC and virtually every single comments section.

              the web is full of armchair experts who think 'everything' is wrong. sure some of those opinions come from a place of truth, some a lot are saying something interesting but just as many people just mouth off because they know it upsets and annoys people. This has been happening for years.

              When was the last time you said you like something, without adding a qualifier 'I liked X but, however, though. people consume culture now as they it is a jilted lover having to prove itself. Its called confirmation bias. Pass.

                Your words mate, you think it's acceptable to force blame upon people with no relation or impact on the subject.

                I know how internet comments work, which is why I won't pretend they are a catalyst or cause for something completely unrelated.

                It's becoming clear you see the potential for bottles to be thrown at you while you strike he crucifixion pose on stage, even if you have to create the situation yourself.

      He also started the franchise so he's worth listening to. And after Alien 3 and 4 it was really ruined anyway. He was trying to do something new. It didn't work but he tried.

        Alien's a weird series in that the producers were more important than the directors, with most of the interesting ideas coming from them.

        "Prometheus: by the visionary creator of Alien!"
        Oh, Walter Hill's back writing it? Okay, I'm down.
        "No, you plebian. Sir Ridley is back! With nobody to restrain his brilliance!"
        ... What was his last good... right, Thelma and Louise Never mind, I'll give it a shot.
        "He's not in a slump, you're in a slump! How dare you not love Gladiator?! Also, he threw out most of the script and let the guy from Lost make up whatever the hell sounded 'deep' instead."
        Oh... that sounds... wonderful. When does Dredd come out, again?

          Haha. Great post dude!

          Thelma and Louise? What about Blackhawk Down? That's a solid film as well I think.

          But I have NEVER been so physically angry watching a movie, as I was when I saw Prometheus. I know people who loved it but for me it was an incoherent, lazy, ridiculous, illogical just.... gah! Mess of a thing that was.

          But I would still listen to all of Ridley Scott's advice about film making. It's my goal to be in his position one day, so if anyone's worth listening to it's him.

    Old man who got his break as a sci-fi director for hire tells sci-fi directors for hire to get off his lawn. Well, when he isn't hiring Lost writers to turn the Alien franchise into faux philosophic garbage.

      well given the 'lifeboat' drama that was the original has been copied by virtually every slasher film since, and the 'gun blazing but seriously failing hoorah' from Aliens has been copied by every Michael Bay wanna ever since. Give me a director who tries something different. Even if they miss the mark.

      That is what the Alien franchise has been for me, 40 years of different directors trying new things. Alien straight up isolationist horror. Aliens a great war film. Alien 3 a dark physiology, Alien 4 a french/hip hollywood fusion.

      Given people have seen Alien and Aliens played out and copied so many Ridley thought a philosophical journey would be more interesting, little did he know that even though armchair experts like to make themselves seem like the smartest kids in the room, they arent really bright or interested in new things. Then in Covenant he gives them what they want and yet they still complain... why? because nothing in this universe will ever match that film they want in their head.

    Anyone else think the attached photo was of Kelsey Grammer?

      In my opinion he looks a bit like Bryan Cranston mixed with Kelsey Grammer.

    I love Ridley, but I'd argue that the heading to this article is a touch misleading

    Except the biggest problems with the recent Star Wars film don't come from the director, they come from the writers. Even a good director can't turn a garbage script into a good film.

      just because YOU dont like a script, that doesnt make it garbage, it just makes it a script YOU dont like.

        Except from a writing perspective they're categorically bad writing. Let's start with writing 101: a story should have a core conflict that has a resolution, and as part of this one or more characters should undergo a significant change from this process. This is typically considered essential in genre fiction such as sci-fi/fantasy, which Star Wars falls into. So let's look at Rogue One and The Last Jedi through this lens.

        Rogue One's narrative purpose is to showcase the stealing of the Death Star plans as audiences heard about in A New Hope. So it's sort of a heist movie, but it ends right after the heist occurs. The biggest problem is that characters don't act in a way that logically follows from the events or their experiences - they act the way they do because they're required to do so by the plot. It doesn't stand on its own as a movie or a plot, it is utterly reliant on existing audience investment in the series and setting in order to succeed.

        The Last Jedi is even worse. It throws away all the story goals of Force Awakens and trades them in for nothing. The stakes don't change throughout the entire film - it begins and ends with the rebels running from the first order. None of the characters grow in any way apart from Poe Dameron, who sort of learns how to be a leader. The movie is filled with logical inconsistencies (first order droid spots Finn, Rose and BB8, but lets BB8 go free), plot holes (how did Finn drag Rose's body to the bunker in front of an entire army?), and characters added simply to force motivation (Yoda showing up purely to tell Luke he has to fight) or provide a deus ex machina (ice dogs providing a way out of the cave) or sell merchandise (porgs). This is just a small selection of issues, as they're littered throughout the entire film. If you analyse the story, events or characters with even a slightly critical eye, it's painfully obvious how appalling and sloppy the writing is.

        So I reiterate, the problem with the recent films hasn't been the directors. If anything, the directors have done a superb job of turning these awful scripts into movies that are spectacles. The films are a series of events presented as an entertaining sequence of scenes, but they are utterly devoid of any substance whatsoever in terms of the writing. If these movies weren't Star Wars, the scripts wouldn't have been backed by any studio.

          this shows exactly why armchair experts are the worse.

          A plot hole is not something you dont like, or they didnt have time to explain, or something you miss. The Ice Dogs finding a way out of the cave is NOT a Deus Ex. If Dangermouse turned up to show them a way out, that would be one. But nature fauna finding a way to escape in times of grave danger, thats kinda what animals do.

          Poe was the only character to grow? Pfft hardly Rey and Kylo to a huge extent, and their mutual relationship even more. To say nothing of Luke's journey. Whether you agree with it or not, it is quit clear he went on a huge journey.

          Complaining about porgs... I hate to break it to you but if you dont like merchandise in your Stars Wars. You are about 40 years too late. The originals invented what we now know of film mechanise. (or maybe you arent old enough to understand what Star Wars toys were 80's kids and market for them now as adults.

          You didnt like the Yoda part? did you have a problem with Obi Wan's ghost in Empire? he virtually did the same type of thing.

          The problem with all this Hollywood Writing 101. Is that is all rubbish. Pretty much everything we consume for 30-40-at least are all based around this tired and confining "have to's" to such extent if anything doesnt follow them, to SOME it feels like the writing is bad because it isnt following the rules. Then those armchair experts use those rubbish things like Deus Ex, Plot Holes. Painful. Here is any idea... watch UK tv or some French or Swedish, read some classic literature or hell even watch old Hollywood films and be reminded there is hundreds of ways to tell a story. Not just Hollywood Writing 101 which is the McDonalds of writing.

          Ultimately I dont think Star Wars of ANY generation can stand up to such cynical tearing apart. To admire a painting you need to stand a certain distance away, get too close and all you see are the brush strokes without their context. Likewise if you are trying to read a book and all you see are letters, are you reading or looking. I think some people forget context in films like this, they are too busy tearing it apart to meet unmatchable expectations, they forget their 'child inside'

            You call people criticising the film armchair expert. Similarly, I'd cast you as an armchair apologist. You like the spectacle of the films and Star Wars as a franchise, and thus will blindly accept and ignore faults, and attack those who dare point them out.

            The ice dogs are a deus ex machina because they only reason they exist is to provide the mechanism for the rebels to escape. There's absolutely no reason for them to appear near the cave or disappear into the cave, or to wait until the very last moment to escape. They're purely there to provide the means for the rebels to escape. I guess at best you could call them a weak plot device.

            The other things I mentioned are legitimately plot holes, but I think Finn and Rose is the most egregious example. There is absolutely no means for Finn to drag Rose back to the bunker. They were out in the open, in the clear, with no cover, and had driven in relatively high speed vehicles to reach the point they crashed. There's absolutely no possibility of them getting back to the cave, yet they do simply because it's required by the plot.

            Rey didn't change. She levelled up in force powers. Kylo killed Snoke, but that didn't change his character. He's still a whining brat who is desperate to have someone respect him. Their relationship didn't change either - just because they've interacted with each other doesn't mean that there is a change in their relationship. Luke may as well have been an entirely different character than the original trilogy, and while I was okay with that, there's essentially no connection with whomever this new character is now and thus his "arc" (though I fail to see how it really constitutes anything of substance) doesn't have any weight.

            I agree that not every story has to follow exactly the same formula, but there are some basic elements that stories need to have. As I said, writing 101, and these movies fail basic tenets of writing. I never thought Star Wars was the amazing cinematic masterpiece some people make it out to be, but A New Hope was a competently told Hero's Journey, and the original trilogy extended it out. The series is now so large with such a devout fanbase that people just refuse to consider it a failure, no matter how many missteps and mistakes it makes.

            I can fully accept that people enjoyed the films and thought they were a great spectacle, but in terms of storytelling, they were utterly abysmal, and anyone who says otherwise is excusing bad writing either through ignorance or blind fandom.

              "The ice dogs are a deus ex machina because they only reason they exist" as far as my memory serves every single planet in Star Wars has always had and gave camera close ups (and plot points sometimes) to local fauna. It is as Star Wars as lightsabers.

              What are talking about quite clearly Kylo changed, he even changed before he killed Snoke, he was most certainly different after it. Sure he still had impulse control issues but everything else had changed.

              Once again mate just because YOU dont like something, that doesnt make it bad, it just makes it something YOU dont like. If you were to tell me your favourite band, writer etc, do you think they would be the same for me or anything else reading? the appreciation of art goes beyond 'good' or 'bad', just because Hollywood 101 writing is maybe all you know, or you just like it, that doesnt mean other styles are inspirational and satisfying to others.

                I'm not talking Hollywood Writing 101. I said writing 101. This isn't anything to do with Hollywood or usual Hollywood style movies, this is basic plotting and character development issues.

                It's not about liking or disliking, it's about the writing failing at simple issues of consistency and logic within the events, settings, character actions and consequences related to them. It appears that you can't even contemplate the concept that The Last Jedi has poor writing with regards to those things, or that it apparently has any faults at all.

                So I bid you good day, because while I'm happy to admit that The Last Jedi is an entertaining spectacle of a film despite a raft of glaring errors, I have no interest in discussing the film with someone who apparently thinks it's nothing short of a masterpiece.

            In my opiniony the original trilogy was a master work in classical story telling. The hero's journey, complete character arcs, telling a succinct story that unfolded over 3 films. Luke starts as an inexperienced farmer and grows over the course of the films until his powers match that of his fathers, who he defeats at the end. That's really classic, strong storytelling and in my opinion, THAT's what made star wars a classic. Not the sci fi spectacle, but the emotion behind it.

            There are flaws, of course, but it's pretty clear from the prequel trilogy and now the new trilogy that there's no over-riding story for the 3 films. They're just making it up as they go and it shows. Writing is hard though. It should really be called re-writing. It's re-writing that makes something good.

              That's the thing, I agree the original trilogy is a well crafted classic Hero's Journey. The first movie marks the basic structure down, then the following two expand it out into the full picture complete with all of the standard components that story structure entails. It's a good set of films because they're crafted well and are an excellent case study to teach people and aspiring writers about that particular storytelling approach. It's almost textbook in its application of the structure, and for that it must be commended.

              The less said about the prequels, the better. They're an absolute and irredeemable mess. It tells a story that didn't need to be told, filled with characters and plot events that are pointless and serve no thematic or narrative purpose apart from shifting the individual stories pieces about on the chess board of the plot. Unfortunately, these new films seem to be heading in the same direction.

              I don't think every story should be the classic Hero's Journey tale, but there needs to be something. It seems like the scripts are just being accepted on the first draft with barely any editing or critique. For all the money Disney has to throw at this enormous franchise, it just seems like a waste of effort to deliver such sub-par writing to back the films.

              yet the flaw to your argument about the originals and these new one is: George was making it up as he was going along as well, in many ways, one especially... Vadar was not always Luke's father.

              Sure it doesnt change you ultimate point about the originals, but changes the heroes journey, but viewing them through rose-tinted glasses, that you refuse to wear for the new ones, means that it is not a fair playing field. NOTHING will ever match what those films meant, at that time, not just history and society. The sooner new Star Wars films burn the whole past to the ground, and start forging new ideas, the better, thats why Last Jedi really hits home for some of us. I am ready to never see any of the original cast, including chewy and the droids. its time for another generation not weigh down by some of its original fan base who are now cynical and unsatifiable and refuse to let the past go.

                All writing is made up as it goes along man. That's how it works. That's not a flaw in my argument, that's how the process is done.

                I'm not viewing them through rose tinted glasses. The original trilogy is really well done. It told a really strong story with a main villain, main protagonist and a clear and well defined goal for all three films.

                I'm sorry you don't agree. I'm glad you love the new films. I love films too. But for me, these aren't good films. I find it interesting that so many people do love them but I'm not one of them. To sign off I will simply say: Space Leia, Space fuel, Hyperdrive kamikaze tactics, Ackbar killed offscreen, the entire salt planet battle.

                But I'm glad you enjoyed it. Films are meant to be enjoyed. It's a good thing.

                  Also. Benicio Del Toro AND Lara Dern. Like, seriously. So not necessary.

          I really liked Rogue One. I thought it was a good example of good directing saving an average script.

          I agree with everything you said about Last Jedi. I thought it was really bad. It's interesting that so many other people love it though. I don't think they're making these movies for people like us anymore.

    I haven't seen TLJ yet, but from what I hear and read people seem to have more of a problem with RJ's writing than with his directing. And I thought GE did a good job with RO.

    I'm reserving judgement until I see TLJ but I can understand where some long-term SW fans might find dissatisfaction with the new trilogy. Like me, they may have already read a well-written and enjoyable continuation of the OT more than 20 years ago. I know Disney removed TZ's novels from canon but for me they will always be the definitive version of what happens after RotJ. So I'm sure others might feel the same.

    I'm not too bothered about it though, I've always found the movies to be some of the weakest elements of the SW IP. I much prefer the novels and games.

    I can't think of a director who could have done anything better with TLJ script. It was fanfic quality at best.

      It was his script. He wrote it.

        Eeep. I did not know that. He should focus strongly on never writing scripts again.

          Scuttlebutt says, on the strength of the last, he's been offered his own stand alone star wars trilogy.

    Can we just have Dave Filoni direct the next film please!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now