Han Solo spin off just hit a speed bump

[DC Tom]

 

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.

 

That's unquestionably how most of these CUs will end. I don't know to what degree the producers of the stories realize that they're actually executing serialized storytelling with their CUs (pretty sure Marvel knows, pretty sure DC and Universal don't have a clue.) Ultimately they'll run into the same "hardening of the arteries" problem that TV series run in to: every episodic installment imposes some sort of constraint on those following, and eventually your scope for originality all-but disappears. This is particularly true when you're serializing characters, rather than just setting and context (which is why Rogue One worked as well as it did - new characters, thus lack of character constraints from previous installments.)

 

Good creative staff knows how to get around this: make sure the story has an end, and when you reach the end, you're done. Gilligan with Breaking Bad is the best example I can think of. Marvel's been sort-of doing this with the MCU: all the early movies served a larger goal of being part of an overall Avengers origin story, and since Avengers have all been part of the build up to Infinity War.

 

But that brings up the other fatal flaw in the CUs that will ultimately kill them: Hollywood being Hollywood, they won't end these CU serials naturally. They will squeeze every last drop of blood out of them, then market the dessicated husks for a couple years until they realize the properties are truly dead and gone. Some of the creative staff in the MCU might be smart enough to understand this...but they'll be overridden by the accountants' demands for more tent-poles. I don't think anyone in the DCU sees this coming, given that they don't even have any coherence in their own CU beyond shared characters. Universal and their Monster Mash...who knows what those morons are thinking?

[Deranged Rhino]

All excellent points.

[DC Tom]

All excellent points.

 

If anything ever comes of that post, I hope it's that you and Mark get the rest of the industry to call Universal's Dark Universe the "Monster Mash."

[Deranged Rhino]

More updates, including the crew breaking into applause at the news of Howard's hiring:

 

'Star Wars' Firing Reveals a Disturbance in the Franchise

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-han-solo-movie-firing-new-details-behind-phil-lord-chris-miller-exit-1016619

[DC Tom]

More updates, including the crew breaking into applause at the news of Howard's hiring:

 

'Star Wars' Firing Reveals a Disturbance in the Franchise

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-han-solo-movie-firing-new-details-behind-phil-lord-chris-miller-exit-1016619

 

 

But the source close to Lord and Miller acknowledges they have always worked in an improvisational style and not just to add comedic elements. "They collaborate closely with their actors and give them creative freedom that, in their experience, brings out the actors' best performances," this person says.

 

 

Yeah, you can't really do that with a prequel to an established set of characters using a different set of actors. "Yeah, Harrison Ford, Peter Mayhew, and Billy Dee Williams have already defined these characters, but...tell ya what, just wing it." Uh...no.

 

There really seems to be a healthy amount of stupid involved in this story.

[Mark Vader]

 

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."

Your point is well made.

 

I get what the executive producers are doing and I agree, someone definitely fell asleep at the wheel.

 

They hired Lord & Miller, more likely due to the success that they had with "The Lego Movie". The same reason they tabbed Colin Trevorrow to direct Episode IX, after the enormous success of "Jurassic World".

 

I understand that when it comes to a franchise there are guidelines that have to be maintained which will limit creative film making, yet there are ways that a director can add certain nuances without offending said guidelines.

 

I believe Gareth Edwards succeeded with this in how "Rogue One" turned out. While it was not a "war movie" as people were saying it was initially, it did have a more serious tone to it than we're used to seeing in a Star Wars film.

 

It's too bad that it had to end this way, with so much more filming to be shot. This is not like the situation with "Justice League", although apparently Joss Whedon was assisting with that film even before Zack Snyder left.

 

I am confident that it will still work out. Although, when it comes to hiring, Kathleen Kennedy and her production members should spend more time looking for "yes men/women" instead of looking for creativity.

 

Also, DC Tom, I share your frustration regarding Marcus Brody. Also, Obi-Wan's explanation in "Return of the Jedi", was BS.

[Deranged Rhino]

And now, Trevorrow has been fired off Episode IV.

 

Happened a few days ago but I've been swamped. Here's an article with a lot of "unnamed sources" (so take it with a grain of salt) but still made me laugh:

 

Report: Kathleen Kennedy Won’t Put Up With Your ‘Star Wars’ Bullsh*t

http://theplaylist.net/report-kathleen-kennedy-wont-put-star-wars-bullsht-20170908/

[Mark Vader]

And now, Trevorrow has been fired off Episode IV.

 

Happened a few days ago but I've been swamped. Here's an article with a lot of "unnamed sources" (so take it with a grain of salt) but still made me laugh:

 

Report: Kathleen Kennedy Won’t Put Up With Your ‘Star Wars’ Bullsh*t

http://theplaylist.net/report-kathleen-kennedy-wont-put-star-wars-bullsht-20170908/

Yeesh!

 

Reading this article just makes me feel uneasy. Thankfully Rian Johnson has reportedly had no rifts with the egomaniacal Kennedy, and if he lands the directing job for Episode IX, that's fine with me.

 

I wasn't that big on going with Colin Trevorrow in the first place, and I felt that they only hired him because of how much money "Jurassic World" made. Which makes sense from a Hollywood perspective.

 

I really want to know what it was specifically that Gareth Edwards' original vision of "Rogue One" was supposed to be like.

 

To the original point of this article, perhaps the idiots in charge at Lucasfilm, should just hire a bunch of "Yes" people to direct, instead of bringing in young up and coming talent. Again, Rian Johnson has miraculously survived.

[Deranged Rhino]

Yeesh!

 

Reading this article just makes me feel uneasy. Thankfully Rian Johnson has reportedly had no rifts with the egomaniacal Kennedy, and if he lands the directing job for Episode IX, that's fine with me.

 

I wasn't that big on going with Colin Trevorrow in the first place, and I felt that they only hired him because of how much money "Jurassic World" made. Which makes sense from a Hollywood perspective.

 

I really want to know what it was specifically that Gareth Edwards' original vision of "Rogue One" was supposed to be like.

 

To the original point of this article, perhaps the idiots in charge at Lucasfilm, should just hire a bunch of "Yes" people to direct, instead of bringing in young up and coming talent. Again, Rian Johnson has miraculously survived.

 

Agreed. It'll be interesting to see if Johnson gets the Episode IV job (most expect him to), I would have preferred that originally to Trevorrow.

 

Man, I don't know the guy but the way they talked about him in that article is hilarious (because that type totally exists in this business, so it makes sense). I mean, terrible to try to collaborate with (if true) but it was so scathing it just made me laugh. Kennedy aside - someone really has a grudge against Colin.

[Mark Vader]

 

Agreed. It'll be interesting to see if Johnson gets the Episode IV job (most expect him to), I would have preferred that originally to Trevorrow.

 

Man, I don't know the guy but the way they talked about him in that article is hilarious (because that type totally exists in this business, so it makes sense). I mean, terrible to try to collaborate with (if true) but it was so scathing it just made me laugh. Kennedy aside - someone really has a grudge against Colin.

Yeah, the article sounds very embellished, and it's written from a group called "The Vulture"?

 

Even if it isn't true about what they are saying about Trevorrow, they would probably use the failure of "Book of Henry" as an excuse to fire him.

 

The people at Lucasfilm need to calm down. I don't know what this "protecting the integrity of Star Wars" is supposed to mean, but they should seriously consider broadening their horizons.

 

They need to venture further out into the Star Wars universe. I'm all for a movie about a young Han Solo, but a movie devoted to Obi-Wan Kenobi, does not excite me.

[DC Tom]

And now, Trevorrow has been fired off Episode IV.

 

Initial reaction: "Wait...what? They're remaking Episode IV? Lucas didn't !@#$ around with it enough with the re-releases?"

 

Episode IX, goddammit. Don't do that to me...

[Mark Vader]

 

Initial reaction: "Wait...what? They're remaking Episode IV? Lucas didn't !@#$ around with it enough with the re-releases?"

 

Episode IX, goddammit. Don't do that to me...

[Deranged Rhino]

Initial reaction: "Wait...what? They're remaking Episode IV? Lucas didn't !@#$ around with it enough with the re-releases?"

 

Episode IX, goddammit. Don't do that to me...

Oops.

[LeGOATski]

Yeesh!

 

Reading this article just makes me feel uneasy. Thankfully Rian Johnson has reportedly had no rifts with the egomaniacal Kennedy, and if he lands the directing job for Episode IX, that's fine with me.

 

I wasn't that big on going with Colin Trevorrow in the first place, and I felt that they only hired him because of how much money "Jurassic World" made. Which makes sense from a Hollywood perspective.

 

I really want to know what it was specifically that Gareth Edwards' original vision of "Rogue One" was supposed to be like.

 

To the original point of this article, perhaps the idiots in charge at Lucasfilm, should just hire a bunch of "Yes" people to direct, instead of bringing in young up and coming talent. Again, Rian Johnson has miraculously survived.

Didn't Spielberg recommend Trevorrow?

 

Thought I heard that somewhere.

[Deranged Rhino]

Didn't Spielberg recommend Trevorrow?

 

Thought I heard that somewhere.

 

He did for Jurassic World - that's how Trevorrow got that job. Spielberg hand picked him to direct it, so he was untouchable on set (and I enjoyed the movie - so I'm not complaining).

 

I'm not sure Spielberg recommended him for the Star Wars gig (he may have), but I think he got picked because JW made lots of dough and he had Spielberg's previous blessing (he and Kennedy are friendly).

[LeGOATski]

 

He did for Jurassic World - that's how Trevorrow got that job. Spielberg hand picked him to direct it, so he was untouchable on set (and I enjoyed the movie - so I'm not complaining).

 

I'm not sure Spielberg recommended him for the Star Wars gig (he may have), but I think he got picked because JW made lots of dough and he had Spielberg's previous blessing (he and Kennedy are friendly).

JW was entertaining, but not a great movie.

 

And his other movies suck. I'm glad they decided to go with someone else.

[shrader]

Why do they get a different director for each movie? Is there a downside to having the same person do each one?

[Deranged Rhino]

Why do they get a different director for each movie? Is there a downside to having the same person do each one?

Timing is my guess. Along with cost.

 

The schedules are so tight with one movie coming out each year, it takes 3-4 months to shoot, another 6+ to do post - plus any lead in time for pre production, then you have to promote the film/reshoot etc, they would have to stagger the releases more if they used the same director.

[Mark Vader]

Why do they get a different director for each movie? Is there a downside to having the same person do each one?

 

 

Timing is my guess. Along with cost.

 

The schedules are so tight with one movie coming out each year, it takes 3-4 months to shoot, another 6+ to do post - plus any lead in time for pre production, then you have to promote the film/reshoot etc, they would have to stagger the releases more if they used the same director.

I agree with Deranged Rhino's explanation.

 

Also add in the fact that having one director commit to an entire trilogy is a lot to take on. Some directors want to do various kinds of films.

 

Let's also remember that the original Star Wars trilogy had three different directors.

[/dev/null]

I agree with Deranged Rhino.

 

Said nobody ever