Yeah, and I personally think this was one of the largest problems with the sequel trilogy. Just petty BS.
They should definitely not have had three different directors, which was the original plan, especially not three different directors with three different styles entirely - Abrams is a reliable, safe pair of hands kind of guy with a sort of fascination with found footage (which sadly didn't use here lol), Johnson is a much bolder film-maker with a ton of skill and heart, who is all about the interpersonal drama, and Trevorrow... well, he's a misogynistic hack who is only in Hollywood because he knew the right people growing up, so yeah that's his style lol.
Either of the first two, and I think we'd be arguing about whether the ST was better than the OT or not. Like seriously.
Abrams for all three movies, we'd have something nostalgic and genealogy-obsessed, and very much in the old EU tradition, but which probably would have been highly competent and worked well.
Johnson we'd have had something really moving and dramatic, where we all had very strong opinions on the characters and events, and it would probably have been fairly "relevant" feeling rather than nostalgic (which was always Lucas' intention, note), and I think they'd have been pretty well-received because he'd have had the whole of his vision, not just like an interruption.
Trevorrow for all three it'd have been absolute [crap]-show, with mediocre directing, poor-to-bad performances (because he's terrible at getting good perfomances out of people), and incredibly sloppy writing. Also misogyny, because that dude LOVES misogyny. But based on his script Luke would have gone Super-Saiyan so I guess someone might have liked that?
(His script is pretty awful, Jenny Nicholson goes through it here:
)
