Han Solo spin off just hit a speed bump

[Deranged Rhino]

While I LOVE the crew shirts for the movie (and it's cast):

 

 

This can't be a good sign... there's three weeks of shooting left apparently.

 

‘Star Wars’ Han Solo Spinoff: Lord & Miller Fired After Clashing With Kathleen Kennedy (EXCLUSIVE)

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/star-wars-han-solo-kathleen-kennedy-director-fired-1202473919/

 

So far Disney's handling of the property has been smooth and director friendly... but this, coupled with the most recent reviews of Book of Henry (the latest from Episode's 9 director Colin Trevorrow) could be the first signs of trouble for what up until this point has been smooth sailing for the mouse house.

 

http://variety.com/2017/film/columns/star-wars-episode-ix-colin-trevorrow-1202468635/

 

[DC Tom]

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Those shirts are amazing.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Perfect clip.

 

Ron Howard is now the rumored choice to take over... reaffirming this is really old school hollywood versus new school hollywood clashing.

 

http://deadline.com/2017/06/ron-howard-han-solo-star-wars-movie-replace-phil-lord-christopher-miller-directors-1202117289/

Those shirts are amazing.

 

Agreed.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

Perfect clip.

 

Ron Howard is now the rumored choice to take over... reaffirming this is really old school hollywood versus new school hollywood clashing.

 

http://deadline.com/2017/06/ron-howard-han-solo-star-wars-movie-replace-phil-lord-christopher-miller-directors-1202117289/

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

I've heard the difference between the directors and Disney has been about the humour and tone of the film. Disney execs have thought the movie was getting to comedic and not being serious enough.

[LeGOATski]

I've heard the difference between the directors and Disney has been about the humour and tone of the film. Disney execs have thought the movie was getting to comedic and not being serious enough.

I'm on Disney's side, if that's the case. They've done a great job with these movies, so far. Let's not get too silly.

 

That said, the Han Solo treatment does require something different. I'm envisioning a tone like the first Iron Man. He's that same kind of lead character.

[Wayne Cubed]

I'm on Disney's side, if that's the case. They've done a great job with these movies, so far. Let's not get too silly.

 

That said, the Han Solo treatment does require something different. I'm envisioning a tone like the first Iron Man. He's that same kind of lead character.

 

Yea, it's a tough one because of Han Solo the character. I could see where the directors would kind of want to make it a bit more comedic but for me Han Solo is more cocky than comedic. I think the first Iron Man is a good example, Tony Stark is cocky which has humor to it because of how over the top he is.

[boyst]

Nnnnnnnnnnnnerds

[DC Tom]

 

Perfect clip.

 

Ron Howard is now the rumored choice to take over... reaffirming this is really old school hollywood versus new school hollywood clashing.

 

http://deadline.com/2017/06/ron-howard-han-solo-star-wars-movie-replace-phil-lord-christopher-miller-directors-1202117289/

 

Agreed.

 

Ron Howard? Star Wars?

 

Are they recasting Tom Hanks as Han Solo?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Ron Howard? Star Wars?

 

Are they recasting Tom Hanks as Han Solo?

[Mark Vader]

While I LOVE the crew shirts for the movie (and it's cast):

 

 

This can't be a good sign... there's three weeks of shooting left apparently.

 

‘Star Wars’ Han Solo Spinoff: Lord & Miller Fired After Clashing With Kathleen Kennedy (EXCLUSIVE)

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/star-wars-han-solo-kathleen-kennedy-director-fired-1202473919/

 

So far Disney's handling of the property has been smooth and director friendly... but this, coupled with the most recent reviews of Book of Henry (the latest from Episode's 9 director Colin Trevorrow) could be the first signs of trouble for what up until this point has been smooth sailing for the mouse house.

 

http://variety.com/2017/film/columns/star-wars-episode-ix-colin-trevorrow-1202468635/

 

On the first article, I'm not surprised at how Kathleen Kennedy is. I wasn't that thrilled with her being given so much power on these projects to begin with.

 

Too bad that Lord & Miller have been released from this project. You are correct, Deranged Rhino, this a clash between old school and new school.

 

You bring in these up and coming directors, so let them do their thing. It's all about power.

 

As for the second article, i think the writer of it is overreacting a bit.

 

Just because "The Book of Henry" was a misfire, is no reason to fret about Colin Trevorrow. Then the writer brings up "Wonder Woman" and it's affect it's having on Hollywood. Which I find is very annoying.

 

Don't get me wrong, "Wonder Woman" was a very good movie, but the overreaction to it is ridiculous. Calm down everybody.

 

While I agree that Colin Trevorrow got the Episode IX gig, because of the success of "Jurassic World", I see that as a positive.

 

Maybe he isn't as innovative or much of a visionary as Gareth Edwards & Rian Johnson are, but I see very little to be negative about him. Just relax and give him a chance.

[Deranged Rhino]

Lord and Miller's side of the conflict coming out a bit more today...

 

http://variety.com/2017/film/columns/why-the-universe-needs-directors-like-phil-lord-and-christopher-miller-1202474276/

 

"On paper, Lord and Miller’s irreverent sensibility seemed like a perfect match for Han Solo, the franchise’s most sardonic character. One has to assume that it was precisely that take Kathy Kennedy and the “Star Wars” producers wanted when they hired the duo. But this is where modern critics, columnists and the fan community at large fail to understand a fundamental change that is happening at the blockbuster level in Hollywood: These directors are not being chosen to put their personal stamp on these movies. They are being hired to do the opposite, to suppress their identity and act grateful while the producers make all the key creative decisions."

 

Can speak from experience... this is more true than not. As is this quote:

 

"Independent schlock producer Roger Corman memorably observed that in the post-“Jaws,” post-“Star Wars” era, the A movies have become the B movies, and the B movies have become the A movies — which is another way of saying that today, instead of taking risks on smart original movies for grown-up sensibilities (say, tony literary adaptations and films based on acclaimed Broadway plays), the studios are investing most of their resources into comic-book movies and the equivalent of cliffhanger serials (from Tarzan to Indiana Jones).

 

To Corman’s equation I would add the following corollary: On today’s tentpoles, the director’s job is to take orders, while producers and other pros are called in to oversee the complicated practical and CG sequences that ultimately define these movies. It’s an extension of the old second-unit model, wherein experienced stunt and action-scene professionals handled the logistics of car chases and exotic location work — except that now, such spectacular sequences are the most important part of effects-driven movies. Meanwhile, the one ingredient the producers can’t fake or figure out on their own is the human drama, which is the reason that directors of Sundance films keep getting handed huge Hollywood movies: to deliver the chemistry that will make audiences care about all those big set pieces."

 

 

 

On the first article, I'm not surprised at how Kathleen Kennedy is. I wasn't that thrilled with her being given so much power on these projects to begin with.

 

Too bad that Lord & Miller have been released from this project. You are correct, Deranged Rhino, this a clash between old school and new school.

 

You bring in these up and coming directors, so let them do their thing. It's all about power.

 

Absolutely

 

 

As for the second article, i think the writer of it is overreacting a bit.

 

Just because "The Book of Henry" was a misfire, is no reason to fret about Colin Trevorrow. Then the writer brings up "Wonder Woman" and it's affect it's having on Hollywood. Which I find is very annoying.

 

Don't get me wrong, "Wonder Woman" was a very good movie, but the overreaction to it is ridiculous. Calm down everybody.

 

While I agree that Colin Trevorrow got the Episode IX gig, because of the success of "Jurassic World", I see that as a positive.

 

Maybe he isn't as innovative or much of a visionary as Gareth Edwards & Rian Johnson are, but I see very little to be negative about him. Just relax and give him a chance.

 

I'm with you. Check out the above linked article, they go into Colin quite a bit.

 

As for the overall topic, I get the business model behind $150m productions, but why hire a creative talent and not let them be creative with the material?

 

It's nutty to me.

*****************************

More from slash - couched in unconfirmed reports from insiders on set:

 

http://www.slashfilm.com/why-lucasfilm-fired-han-solo-directors/

[Wayne Cubed]

As for the overall topic, I get the business model behind $150m productions, but why hire a creative talent and not let them be creative with the material?

 

It's nutty to me.

 

Yea, I'm with you on that too. Why not let Lord and Miller make the movie you hired them to make? Or if you are worried about a movie becoming too comical don't hire guys that are known for directing and writing comedy films like The Lego Movie which was one liners after one liners.

 

On a side note I love Lord and Miller for Clone High, such an underrated show.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Yea, I'm with you on that too. Why not let Lord and Miller make the movie you hired them to make? Or if you are worried about a movie becoming too comical don't hire guys that are known for directing and writing comedy films like The Lego Movie which was one liners after one liners.

 

On a side note I love Lord and Miller for Clone High, such an underrated show.

 

Agree on all counts, especially the bolded.

[Mark Vader]

I've heard the difference between the directors and Disney has been about the humour and tone of the film. Disney execs have thought the movie was getting to comedic and not being serious enough.

Are these the same Disney execs who were concerned that "Rogue One" felt like too much of a " serious war movie", and didn't have the light heartedness feel you get from Star Wars.

 

For crying out loud! Make up your damned minds! Otherwise leave the film making to the actual film makers!

[/dev/null]

[DC Tom]

 

Yea, I'm with you on that too. Why not let Lord and Miller make the movie you hired them to make? Or if you are worried about a movie becoming too comical don't hire guys that are known for directing and writing comedy films like The Lego Movie which was one liners after one liners.

 

Just to play devil's advocate: because the director nowadays is responsible for only a small portion of a "cinematic universe" of tentpole movies. Their opportunity for creative expression is constrained by the need to be consistent within the "cinematic universes," which means the people running those universes ultimately need to exercise a lot more control in constraining them.

 

It used to not be a problem, because these "cinematic universes" were narrower in scope, producer and director were often the same person (e.g. Spielberg and Indiana Jones; Lucas and Star Wars), and the bull **** tolerance was looser (Marcus Brody morphing from a competent administrator to a bumbling fool between Raiders and The Last Crusade, Obi-Wan's infinitely-stupid-but-still tolerated "from a certain point of view" explanation in Episode VI.) Nowadays, they're broader in scope (every non-Guardians MCU movie features cameos of other Marvel characters with a wink to their standalone movies), narrower in tolerance, and directed by different people. So it falls to the producers to maintain cross-movie continuity, and maintain it tightly to protect the integrity of their 20-year commitments.

 

And a Han Solo movie should be the perfect example of that: it takes place in a universe which canon includes seven previously-made sequels (eight if you include Rogue One...nine if you're completely deranged and include the holiday special,) and God only knows how many books and comics to pick and choose from (which ones the picked and chose, I don't know. That they picked and chose some for canon when making TFA, I'm pretty sure they did.) And at least two more upcoming "main arc" movies as well. Any director coming in to that situation is going to have their creative freedoms limited, by canon and expectation - as much as people complained about TFA being "derivative," people also loved it because it felt like Star Wars, because the cinematography itself was a throwback to the earlier practical-effects driven movies, rather than the digital mess of The Phantom Blemish/Attack Of The Clowns/Whining of the Sith. Any director coming in to that situation should expect their creative control to be heavily constrained.

 

Wayne Cubed and Mark Vader allude to it above: Disney doesn't want Star Wars to be "too comedic," apparently...but at the same time, doesn't want a "war movie." I think Mark's frustration is understandable...but misplaced: Disney isn't making Star Wars films, they're managing a Star Wars universe (And the Star Wars cinematic universe has always included light comedy and light combat, in a specific balance that doesn't devolve into farce or militarism). While "Leave the film making to the actual film makers" is an understandable sentiment, it breaks down when those film-makers are responsible for a single movie inside an entire cinematic universe, and the creators of that universe have to exercise creative control. These movies no longer exist in isolation from each other...if the executive producers think a movie's comedy is devolving in to farce too far outside the normal balancing act of the cinematic universe, it's kind of their job to step in.

 

It really does make the directors little more than "executive cinematographers." Which really begs the question: why the hell would you hire "irreverent, poppy" directors like Lord & Miller to direct a movie in a cinematic universe that's neither irreverent nor poppy??? You know their style, you know you want some irreverence out of a Han Solo character as a byproduct of his cockiness and independence...so have them do a script rewrite. Why hire them to direct a style you don't want your movie directed in??? It's like hiring Mel Brooks to direct Schindler's List, because he did Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles and, hey, they're all sort-of period pictures!

 

And why the hell would you be SO unclear with your expectations and constraints that you keep them on until three weeks left in shooting?

 

This is just bad production. It's less "old vs. new" Hollywood than it is "somebody fell asleep at the wheel."

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Just to play devil's advocate: because the director nowadays is responsible for only a small portion of a "cinematic universe" of tentpole movies. Their opportunity for creative expression is constrained by the need to be consistent within the "cinematic universes," which means the people running those universes ultimately need to exercise a lot more control in constraining them.

 

It used to not be a problem, because these "cinematic universes" were narrower in scope, producer and director were often the same person (e.g. Spielberg and Indiana Jones; Lucas and Star Wars), and the bull **** tolerance was looser (Marcus Brody morphing from a competent administrator to a bumbling fool between Raiders and The Last Crusade, Obi-Wan's infinitely-stupid-but-still tolerated "from a certain point of view" explanation in Episode VI.) Nowadays, they're broader in scope (every non-Guardians MCU movie features cameos of other Marvel characters with a wink to their standalone movies), narrower in tolerance, and directed by different people. So it falls to the producers to maintain cross-movie continuity, and maintain it tightly to protect the integrity of their 20-year commitments.

 

And a Han Solo movie should be the perfect example of that: it takes place in a universe which canon includes seven previously-made sequels (eight if you include Rogue One...nine if you're completely deranged and include the holiday special,) and God only knows how many books and comics to pick and choose from (which ones the picked and chose, I don't know. That they picked and chose some for canon when making TFA, I'm pretty sure they did.) And at least two more upcoming "main arc" movies as well. Any director coming in to that situation is going to have their creative freedoms limited, by canon and expectation - as much as people complained about TFA being "derivative," people also loved it because it felt like Star Wars, because the cinematography itself was a throwback to the earlier practical-effects driven movies, rather than the digital mess of The Phantom Blemish/Attack Of The Clowns/Whining of the Sith. Any director coming in to that situation should expect their creative control to be heavily constrained.

 

Wayne Cubed and Mark Vader allude to it above: Disney doesn't want Star Wars to be "too comedic," apparently...but at the same time, doesn't want a "war movie." I think Mark's frustration is understandable...but misplaced: Disney isn't making Star Wars films, they're managing a Star Wars universe (And the Star Wars cinematic universe has always included light comedy and light combat, in a specific balance that doesn't devolve into farce or militarism). While "Leave the film making to the actual film makers" is an understandable sentiment, it breaks down when those film-makers are responsible for a single movie inside an entire cinematic universe, and the creators of that universe have to exercise creative control. These movies no longer exist in isolation from each other...if the executive producers think a movie's comedy is devolving in to farce too far outside the normal balancing act of the cinematic universe, it's kind of their job to step in.

 

It really does make the directors little more than "executive cinematographers." Which really begs the question: why the hell would you hire "irreverent, poppy" directors like Lord & Miller to direct a movie in a cinematic universe that's neither irreverent nor poppy??? You know their style, you know you want some irreverence out of a Han Solo character as a byproduct of his cockiness and independence...so have them do a script rewrite. Why hire them to direct a style you don't want your movie directed in??? It's like hiring Mel Brooks to direct Schindler's List, because he did Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles and, hey, they're all sort-of period pictures!

 

And why the hell would you be SO unclear with your expectations and constraints that you keep them on until three weeks left in shooting?

 

This is just bad production. It's less "old vs. new" Hollywood than it is "somebody fell asleep at the wheel."

 

That's definitely the logic behind these connected universes and well said.

 

I would go even further than "executive cinematographers" since most of the big visuals are done by the second units on these movies and call them "executive cast babysitters". The only real control they have is in how they chose to coach the actors - which I'm guessing is where the most friction arose in this case (and what makes it ironic). Lord and Miller probably encouraged improv on set and through that improv quickly found a tone they liked that was unexpected by Kasdan and Kennedy. That's a huge problem for all the reasons you listed above. I'm guessing that's what happened, and Lord and Miller were suddenly being told the only thing that was actually in their control really wasn't. Both sides have merit to their position but when you're talking about a billion dollar connected universe franchise, Kennedy has to win in that scenario for all the reasons you stated.

 

That's the inherent flaw in the model though, and I'm guessing how these universes will eventually collapse. They're going to get stale - even visually, especially visually, without at least the occasional injection of spontaneous creation. Without allowing for some ability to veer off the CU cannon when inspiration hits, there won't be any breakthroughs storytelling wise visually or on the page considering these plans are constructed several years in advance of writing (let alone production) even beginning. By the time you start filming some of the tropes will inevitably have been played out by competition or other movies within their own connected universe. It becomes harder and harder to "trick" the audience into suspending their disbelief, so eventually the stories will become stale... at least for casual audiences.

 

But there's no other way around it really, not if you want consistency in the universes. Me, I'd rather see more individual movies that don't have to serve a larger master. Let each one be it's own thing as much as you can (again, that doesn't work with Star Wars as easily as other franchises)...

 

Then again Marvel's making it look easy the way they've managed their universe so far. So what do I know.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

Just to play devil's advocate: because the director nowadays is responsible for only a small portion of a "cinematic universe" of tentpole movies. Their opportunity for creative expression is constrained by the need to be consistent within the "cinematic universes," which means the people running those universes ultimately need to exercise a lot more control in constraining them.

 

It used to not be a problem, because these "cinematic universes" were narrower in scope, producer and director were often the same person (e.g. Spielberg and Indiana Jones; Lucas and Star Wars), and the bull **** tolerance was looser (Marcus Brody morphing from a competent administrator to a bumbling fool between Raiders and The Last Crusade, Obi-Wan's infinitely-stupid-but-still tolerated "from a certain point of view" explanation in Episode VI.) Nowadays, they're broader in scope (every non-Guardians MCU movie features cameos of other Marvel characters with a wink to their standalone movies), narrower in tolerance, and directed by different people. So it falls to the producers to maintain cross-movie continuity, and maintain it tightly to protect the integrity of their 20-year commitments.

 

And a Han Solo movie should be the perfect example of that: it takes place in a universe which canon includes seven previously-made sequels (eight if you include Rogue One...nine if you're completely deranged and include the holiday special,) and God only knows how many books and comics to pick and choose from (which ones the picked and chose, I don't know. That they picked and chose some for canon when making TFA, I'm pretty sure they did.) And at least two more upcoming "main arc" movies as well. Any director coming in to that situation is going to have their creative freedoms limited, by canon and expectation - as much as people complained about TFA being "derivative," people also loved it because it felt like Star Wars, because the cinematography itself was a throwback to the earlier practical-effects driven movies, rather than the digital mess of The Phantom Blemish/Attack Of The Clowns/Whining of the Sith. Any director coming in to that situation should expect their creative control to be heavily constrained.

 

Wayne Cubed and Mark Vader allude to it above: Disney doesn't want Star Wars to be "too comedic," apparently...but at the same time, doesn't want a "war movie." I think Mark's frustration is understandable...but misplaced: Disney isn't making Star Wars films, they're managing a Star Wars universe (And the Star Wars cinematic universe has always included light comedy and light combat, in a specific balance that doesn't devolve into farce or militarism). While "Leave the film making to the actual film makers" is an understandable sentiment, it breaks down when those film-makers are responsible for a single movie inside an entire cinematic universe, and the creators of that universe have to exercise creative control. These movies no longer exist in isolation from each other...if the executive producers think a movie's comedy is devolving in to farce too far outside the normal balancing act of the cinematic universe, it's kind of their job to step in.

 

It really does make the directors little more than "executive cinematographers." Which really begs the question: why the hell would you hire "irreverent, poppy" directors like Lord & Miller to direct a movie in a cinematic universe that's neither irreverent nor poppy??? You know their style, you know you want some irreverence out of a Han Solo character as a byproduct of his cockiness and independence...so have them do a script rewrite. Why hire them to direct a style you don't want your movie directed in??? It's like hiring Mel Brooks to direct Schindler's List, because he did Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles and, hey, they're all sort-of period pictures!

 

And why the hell would you be SO unclear with your expectations and constraints that you keep them on until three weeks left in shooting?

 

This is just bad production. It's less "old vs. new" Hollywood than it is "somebody fell asleep at the wheel."

 

Well said and I agree.

 

It's almost as if the producers heard about Lord & Miller, did no background research on their abilities and what they had directed/wrote, and said "Yea! Let's get those guys in here!"

[Deranged Rhino]

It's official: Ron Howard will take over Solo...

 

 

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/star-wars-han-solo-ron-howard-director-1202474294/