Han Solo spin off just hit a speed bump

[Deranged Rhino]

Said nobody ever

 

[shrader]

 

 

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.

 

And those ones had a three year gap between releases. I guess that's not too far off of the two year gap between the new trilogy films. I'm clueless on how much directors actually do and the work involved on a movie as a whole, but why is it that some decide to film two movies back to back? The first one that always comes to mind for that is Back to the Future 2 and 3, and I'm pretty sure they're doing it with the Avengers right now. For Star Wars, would it mostly be a concern about spoilers leaking out, especially since they plan on a two year gap between release dates?

[Deranged Rhino]

And now it sounds like Abrams is coming back for IX.

 

 

And those ones had a three year gap between releases. I guess that's not too far off of the two year gap between the new trilogy films. I'm clueless on how much directors actually do and the work involved on a movie as a whole, but why is it that some decide to film two movies back to back? The first one that always comes to mind for that is Back to the Future 2 and 3, and I'm pretty sure they're doing it with the Avengers right now. For Star Wars, would it mostly be a concern about spoilers leaking out, especially since they plan on a two year gap between release dates?

 

Back to the Future 2 and 3 (I believe) were filmed back-to-back strictly because of Michael J Fox's schedule at the time. It was the only way he could do both movies within a certain window. I know in the first BTTF they had to shoot almost exclusively at nights or on the weekends because Fox was still doing Family Ties M-F and the network wouldn't let him out of his deal to film. I think by 2 & 3 he was off the TV show but going hard into movies so his schedule was even more booked up. I don't know if this was the first big production to shoot back-to-back, but it was certainly one of the earliest.

 

Other films, like the Matrix sequels, the Pirates sequels, and upcoming Avatar sequels and Infinity Wars were done back-to-back primarily to accommodate the post production schedule (which is intense and the most time consuming/tedious bit) and the actors' schedules (which becomes more difficult the larger/more star-studded the cast). Because these sorts of movies have a lot of visual effects - probably two thirds of the movie's visuals created in post - it's easier/more practical to shoot the scenes that require your cast for both films first and then move into post production. This way is easier to schedule the actors, and guarantees they'll be available. The riskier way to go would be to shoot one huge movie, spend 6+ months in post, and then have to go back out and try to get the same cast back for the sequel - hoping they are still famous (but not MORE famous/more expensive) and have the time to shoot it without messing up the studio's release schedule.

 

Shooting movies back-to-back also helps control the cost of your cast. Michael J Fox was significantly more expensive for the second and third parts of that franchise for example. Had they shot all three at once (which wasn't an option but just speaking in hypotheticals), they could have locked Fox in at a lower cost for all three movies. But because he got SUPER famous between the first and second movies, his quote went through the roof.

 

So, in short, I think it all comes down to keeping costs as low as you can and scheduling.

 

I'm sure spoilers are a concern for the Star Wars universe, especially on VII and now probably IX with Abrams (possibly) back aboard. But I think there's also was a desire on Disney's part to "highlight" young and up coming filmmakers... at least that was the original plan before the trouble started.